Acoustic Guitars

[poppytater]

 Be honest, is there one?  I'm not talking about build quality, sound only. I haven't played any high end boutique stuff, I have played quite a few top end Martins and Gibsons , lot of others in the $300 to $ 5,000 range. I can honestly say that , for me, price is not an indicator of sound quality, The 5 best sounding guitars I 've played are(in no particular order) are-Guild D-55, Fender Elvis Presley Kingman, a very old Martin D-35,Epiphone Masterbilt AJ-500R and a blue Yamaha(model ??). What's your take?

[carguy]

I've often made the same argument. Take a Hummingbird for example. A Gibson Hummingbird costs a little over $3,000 and an Epiphone Hummingbird costs $300. Is there $2,500 better tone in the Gibson? I don't think there is. Most people, myself included, could not tell the difference in sound between the two.

[Opa John]

---

poppytater wrote:

 Be honest, is there one?  What's your take?

---

You're not gonna get any argument from me about that, Poppy. I agree with ya.

I've got two Martins and one Yamaha. The Yamaha was bought new, the two Martins (although they're in "like new" condition) were both purchased used...and at a great price, too.

I love all three of these guitars equally and don't intend to get rid of any of them. But, in all honesty, It's difficult for me to hear any GREAT difference in sound between these guitars and no difference at all in the playability of them. All three have been properly set up, so they all play easily, and they all sound great to me.

However, I think the smile on my face is a little bigger when I'm playing one of the Martins. And, I'm sure, that probably holds true for anyone who's playing a so-called "higher end" guitar over a budget priced one.

Mine sound as good as I can make a guitar sound, so until something changes that would make me be able to play a guitar like Tommy Emmanuel, I don't intend to spend the big bucks on anything that costs any more than the ones I already have. I also think Tommy Emmanuel could make any one of mine sound as good as whatever his favorite guitar is these days.

Like they always say...it's the Indian, not the arrow!

Edit to add: A friend of mine, a very good guitarist, has a Martin D-18 Authentic that he paid $5700 for. He loves it, naturally, but to me, he got taken for a ride! I've played it several times and I've listened to him playing it several times. If his D-18A is an example of how a $5700 Martin is supposed to be, I'll hold onto my money and keep on playing what I have now. He thinks his D-18A is great; I think he spent about $4500 more than he needed to. So be it. 

[garthman]

---

poppytater wrote:

 Be honest, is there one?  I'm not talking about build quality, sound only. I haven't played any high end boutique stuff, I have played quite a few top end Martins and Gibsons , lot of others in the $300 to $ 5,000 range. I can honestly say that , for me, price is not an indicator of sound quality, The 5 best sounding guitars I 've played are(in no particular order) are-Guild D-55, Fender Elvis Presley Kingman, a very old Martin D-35,Epiphone Masterbilt AJ-500R and a blue Yamaha(model ??). What's your take?

---

I completely agree with you, Pops. My two best sounding (to me of course {wink thingy}) are my Crafter dreadnought and my Recording King 000.

I bought the Crafter about 6 years ago and I played lots and lots and lots of guitars - several of which were "high end" - before choosing and for me it was the Crafter that rang the bells. I have to say that the RK is pretty **bleep** good too.

PS. The **bleep** was the word "damn" - if HCAG is getting this f*cking silly I might as well stay over in AGF.

[Opa John]

---

garthman wrote:

---

PS. The **bleep** was the word "damn" - if HCAG is getting this f*cking silly I might as well stay over in AGF.

---

Amen. And, if Poppy had posted this over at AGF, there would already by 4 pages of replies by now disputing his opinion! What can I say......those people over there are just "different". I guess it's to be expected, though, from a site where people thinks it's "normal" to spend $40 for a guitar pick and $175 for a capo.

[guildfire]

I do believe there are differences in tone as you move up the price ladder but they are subtle and not "linear" - ie a $2K guitar doesn't sound twice as good as a $1K guitar.

[FretFiend.]

---

carguy wrote:

I've often made the same argument. Take a Hummingbird for example. A Gibson Hummingbird costs a little over $3,000 and an Epiphone Hummingbird costs $300. Is there $2,500 better tone in the Gibson? I don't think there is. Most people, myself included, could not tell the difference in sound between the two.

---

Not meaning to be too argumentative, but if there is a $200 guitar that sounds as good as that new D-35, you could have saved yourself some serious money.

[acousticdepot]

I don't think it is that simple.  Other things can change besides sound as the price goes up ... like bling.  And sometimes bling can negatively effect sound.

But if you are asking if a D-28 sounds better than a DX1 ... hell yeah!

[acousticdepot]

Also factor in cost of the materials, and sound is in the ear of the beholder.  So Mahoganny may be a cheaper material than rosewood, but you may appreciate the sound more ... therefore you may like the sound less expensive D-18 over the D-28.

[recordingtrack1]

Just an observation and certainly not a stance on the merits of cost vs sound quality.

I recently played a used Epiphone Hummingbird in my local guitar shop.  While it was "okay" I guess, it was a less than stellar performer.  It was several years old and overall was in pretty good shape visually-BUT-the neck was bowing up some and was bellying just a tad.  However, it was obvious to the naked eye.  The string height was not decent and though it could have been set up to compensate for such, I believe the overall build quality to be exactly that of a $200 dollar guitar. It's action was worst in the upper register. I basically believe the longevity of such an instrument to be questionable.  All that said, it was only one instrument.  I have found Epiphone (Masterbilt) guitars to be decent instruments.  I have only played the one Epi H-bird.   One incident does not a pattern make.

EDIT:  oh yeah, I believe the B/S are lam.  I meant to add that earlier but forgot.

RT

[GW348]

My best guitars are in the $2-$2.5k range and I love em.  When I play a $5k McPherson <sp> or a $4k H&D I am totally wow'd!  And my guitars ain't no slouch.

After $5k I think you can start throwing money away.

[EdBega]

The ratio gets out of whack for me over a grand ...

[Neal]

It's not so much the sound, but the feel of the guitar when you play it. Sound comes into play, of course, but the responsiveness of a fine guitar, in the stated price range, can be a game-changer.

Not every person that plays a guitar will appreciate that, just like I can't appreciate driving a Porsche. But it's there.

Give someone that just learned a few cowboy chords a 5K guitar, and there's just no way that person will know the difference. Give someone that's woodshedded for a number of years, they'll appreciate it.

[knockwood]

I'd have to say that the best *sounding* guitars I've heard have mostly been on the pricier side. I don't think sound quality is specifically related to the price tag; however, I do think the greater investment in individual attention, material quality, skill, tuning, etc., enjoyed by higher-end guitars definitely has a qualitative impact that shows ultimately in sound production. I agree completely that whatever differences there may be cannot be scientifically *scaled* in any way related to price. Guitars are priced the way they are due to a lot of factors that have nothing to do with the quality of the instrument itself - like the company's [real estate and utility] overhead, the brand name, etc.

Having said all of that, I do think there are many, many exceptions both ways. I've played VERY expensive guitars that sounded and played awful, and I've played inexpensive guitars that have been fantastic. I'm pretty consistently impressed with Yamaha's acoustic steel string guitars at all price points.

Also, I cannot really separate sound quality from playability. Both are equally vital to me. I can't pull a pleasing sound from an instrument if it is uncomfortable for me to play, and this is an element of production that I feel generally improves in the upper price registers. Again, though, I find Yamaha to be consistently great when it comes to neck construction/setup/playability. A well constructed instrument with decent playability in talented hands will sound great every time, regardless of price.

[carguy]

---

FretFiend. wrote:

---

carguy wrote:

I've often made the same argument. Take a Hummingbird for example. A Gibson Hummingbird costs a little over $3,000 and an Epiphone Hummingbird costs $300. Is there $2,500 better tone in the Gibson? I don't think there is. Most people, myself included, could not tell the difference in sound between the two.

---

Not meaning to be too argumentative, but if there is a $200 guitar that sounds as good as that new D-35, you could have saved yourself some serious money.

---

Yeah, I know what you're saying, but I also took some other factors into buying the D35. I have a bunch of guitars that are in the cheap to mid price range, and I'd like to have something a little nicer to leave my grandkids. I don't think the D35 will lose much value over the years. My other cheaper guitars probably will.

[poppytater]

I think what's between the ears plays just as big a role as the receivers themselves.

[Ricochet]

I'm not sure my skill level or ears are good enough to differentiate past a certain point, and there's always the 80/20 rule that comes into play...so I personally don't find much difference between guitars once you get into all solid wood construction..or, at least, not a difference thats equal to the price tag. (I *can* hear differences between brands and woods, but not so much for different models within a brand with same wood.)

Plus, there are always outliers. My current fave: Alvarez AD710. Solid top, lam sides/back. Feels and sounds great, I'd probably take it over any other guitar that wasn't all solid, and it's under $300. I have no need for another full-size guitar, but the Alvarez keeps tempting me.

[acousticdepot]

---

poppytater wrote:

I think what's between the ears plays just as big a role as the receivers themselves.

---

What does this mean?

[poppytater]

---

acousticdepot wrote:

---

poppytater wrote:

I think what's between the ears plays just as big a role as the receivers themselves.

---

What does this mean?

---

Preconceived notions of price and quality.

[Folky_Grunge]

---

carguy wrote:

I've often made the same argument. Take a Hummingbird for example. A Gibson Hummingbird costs a little over $3,000 and an Epiphone Hummingbird costs $300. Is there $2,500 better tone in the Gibson? I don't think there is. Most people, myself included, could not tell the difference in sound between the two.

---

I don't know if that's a good example, because the Epi and Gibson Hummingbirds and built quite differently (solid vs. lam wood, scale length, etc.), and do sound noticably different as a result. It's not really fair to compare them. Maybe some people couldn't tell the difference, but I can. Is it a $2,500 difference? I don't think so, since to me the difference mostly comes from the scale length, and taking 3/4 of an inch off a neck shouldn't cost that much, but that's what the guitar goes for.

In general, though, I think there is kind of a ratio. But mostly because after a certain point, you end up paying for bling instead of real features and guitars just aren't going to sound any better. That not to say that until that point it's perfectly linear, though - a few days ago I demoed a few $3-400 Tanglewoods, and they all sounded better than the Taylors that cost 2-3 times as much and were sitting right next to them, I've also played Seagulls I liked better than some Martins. How something is built is the real important factor.