Whoa! Guitar Player Reviews Agile Harm 1 Semi-Hollow FG

[Polaris20]

Originally posted by the russ you do not know either way whether or not the guitar was set up prior to the review by Rondo, prior to the review by GP, or not set up by anyone at all. you're assuming GP is somehow at fault by saying "it needs a setup". well, maybe that's a nice way of saying "this thing plays like shit".

 

Actually, it says in the review that it could just need a "pro setup", making it appear as if they didn't set it up.

 

It happens with all the guitars they review. "Intonation is off, action is high" etc. Well, then adjust it!

 

I guess we agree to disagree, as I do put less weight into the reliability of their reviews because of this. But that's my opinion.

[fuzzy4dice]

Originally posted by Polaris20 Actually, it says in the review that it could just need a "pro setup", making it appear as if they didn't set it up. It happens with all the guitars they review. "Intonation is off, action is high" etc. Well, then adjust it! I guess we agree to disagree, as I do put less weight into the reliability of their reviews because of this. But that's my opinion.

 

Thanks for calling me a "dick" in your duplicate thread about when I pointed out THIS thread to you, and now you're calling out the editor of GP in it.

 

Way to do buisness!

 

[the russ]

Originally posted by Polaris20 Actually, it says in the review that it could just need a "pro setup", making it appear as if they didn't set it up. It happens with all the guitars they review. "Intonation is off, action is high" etc. Well, then adjust it! I guess we agree to disagree, as I do put less weight into the reliability of their reviews because of this. But that's my opinion.

 

"pro setup" often means fret dressing, depending on who says it. new guitars that come out of the box needing a dress are ones i usually stay away from. from my experience with Agile guitars, it's not uncommon for them to need a light dress and some fallaway in order to lower the action. maybe that's what GP meant?

 

personally, i don't pay attention to those magazine reviews, or reviews on HC either. the only reviews i really trust are my own and those of other guitar players i know personally to know their shit. i highly recommend it!

[Polaris20]

Originally posted by fuzzy4dice Thanks for calling me a "dick" in your duplicate thread about when I pointed out THIS thread to you, and now you're calling out the editor of GP in it. Way to do buisness!

 

Look dude, I found your post in my thread a bit on the offensive side, because you were all up in arms about me not doing a search, and you were far from polite. Yes, I called you a dick. That is because I found your post to exhibit dick-like behavior.

 

I get tired of people here being search nazis when someone posts a duplicate thread. Get over it, and don't be a dick about it. Unless you're a moderator, STFU.

 

I am not calling out the GP editor. I am stating my opinion that the guitars they review should have someone set it up prior to the review, and note the condition of the out of the box setup, or lack thereof.

 

I am sorry you can't recognize the difference.

 

How long are you going to whine about two threads, and the fact that I don't like you? Get over it.

[fuzzy4dice]

[pipedwho]

 

Originally posted by Polaris20 The only problem I've ever had with any of your reviews, is that you don't set it up prior to testing it. Needs a setup? Do so, and then comment that in the review. Doesn't need a setup? fine, comment that too. But at least do it, so it gives a fair representation of the guitar. As was said in another thread about this review: it's akin to a car reviewer saying "The car just died. We're not sure if it's because it ran out of gas or the engine broke". It's kind of a good idea to figure that out. Looking at your review, I don't know if I should buy the guitar knowing that it needs a $45 set up, or if I'll be blowing $299 because it will never, ever intonate properly.

 

 

I agree completely here, if all the guitars are set up properly as part of the review, then both the effort required for the set up and the final result would let the reviewer get a much better idea of the quality of the instrument. If all that needed was a truss rod adjustment or slight intonation tweak at the bridge, let us know. If it required a full plekking, new nut and bridge replacement and still wouldn't intonate then tell us that too. But at least perform the setup and state this.

 

If I'm looking at a guitar in the shop and it buzzes, I just put it back - because there is no way I could even determine if it might (or might not) have other problems with such a huge up front problem like that. I'd hope the reviewers would at least try to set it up themselves to whatever degree that they're capable. But, I'm all for a full 'pro setup' for all reviewed equipment.

[G-Let]

I like how GP takes pictures of some of the gear in a bar rather than just using stock photos of the stuff. If doesn't help the accuracy or honesty of the reviews, but it is clearly a good move. I give this practice my player's pick award.

[Mighty Coogna!]

The thing about magazine reviews is that you need three qualities in your reviewers, and you get 2 if your lucky.

 

Ability to play fairly well, to accurately assess the instrument.

 

Ability to assess the structural integrity of the instrument, and perform any simple adjustments to facilitate the "best possible" playing scenario.

 

Ability to write a coherent review.

 

Seems to me that most of the reviews I read the reviewer is a writer 1st, a player 2nd and a tech 3rd.

 

I could be wrong, but complaining about little trifles that can be remedied in 5 minutes with a tuner & a screw driver is sort of pathetic.

 

Frankly, I challenge them to find any guitar under 3k that comes in perfect playing condition (requiring only tuning).

[Sadowsky13]

I think all this discussion about a properly set up guitar is kind of silly. These companies send guitars to businesses to sell and in this case sent a guitar for review. When you are sending a guitar to someone to review you would expect the company would take a little time to set it up properly. I think reviewing a guitar that arrived directly from the company indicates the amount of time the company puts into their product. That little extra set up performed by the company show they take that extra step in customer service. I am not saying that Ronda make a bad product, I am simply saying that expecting the reviewer to get the guitar completely set up when the thing is brand new is a little bit too much to expect.

 

If the review claims the guitar may just need a setup then it is probably a fair review.

 

There are some great guitars out there for the price and from what I have read and seen here on HC alot of people really like them and they look very nice, but lets' face reality in that there are going to be differences in guitars that cost 300dollars versus guitars that cost 3000$. If that wasn't the case everyone would be playing 300$ guitars. JMHO

[chronicinsomnia]

The thing about Rondo is if I a lowly gigging musician buys a guitar from them I will have to do a setup on the guitar when it arrives. That is the way they do business. I would like to know what to expect from an instrument after the above mentioned setup.

 

If they send GP a perfectly setup guitar then that is not what Joe Consumer will receive. In my eyes that is kind of deceptive. Therefore, I will according to the review be expecting an absolutely perfect guitar straight out of the box (which I don't from any manufacturer).

 

I think the magazines should give an honest assessment of the guitar straight out of the box. Telling you how it was packaged, what if anything came with it ie; allen wrenches, cord, strap, or other case goodies. Then tell you about the fit, finish, initial impressions out of the box. After doing that if the guitar needs a quick setup state that in the review and what was done. If the guitar has MAJOR setup issues ie; warped neck, crooked frets, impossible for the average amatuer adjustments let the readers know.

 

I don't expect the magazines to spend a fortune in time and effort going over any guitar. However, I would like to know if a guitar has huge potential with minor tweaks or ifthe guitar is better suited as firewood. Especially in this day and age when a large percentage of instrument purchases are made online where you will almost definitely have to do some form of setup prior to any instrument being ideal.

 

 

PeAcE

[fuzzy4dice]

As someone who has owned FOUR Agiles, I must say this: None of the Agiles I ever bought were in dire need of a set-up out of the box.

[gpeditor]

Hi gang...

 

(Mostly) positive comments here. Thanks.

 

We DO test the guitars as received -- just as you might get them in the store (or through mail order). We try to assess whether a poorly setup guitar would sound better with a decent setup -- for example, buzzy frets can typically be cured by working the action -- but several of you are right that we DO NOT take the time to do a "pro" setup after the initial tests. If you feel this would be of value, we will absolutely look into making it happen.

 

This is the first time I've read this complaint in forums that criticize our review process, but it's certainly a fair comment, and one that deserves further study.

 

The only logistical leaps for us are finding a baseline setup guru who is NOT on staff (to ensure apples-to-apples setup methods), and who can setup the guitars on deadline. Then there's the cost factor to GP -- meaning whether the expense is justified by a tangible upgrade to the magazine's reviews in the eyes of the majority of readers. You guys know the drill -- if I spend money on "x" amount of pro setups per issue, then I won't be spending that same amount of money elsewhere (photos, freelance articles, travel, etc.). I'm not against spending the money, but I do want to ensure that GP is benefitting from the expenditure and the necessary resource compromises that shifting bucks from one activity to another may entail.

 

If any one has any different ideas on how to accomplish this, or if you wish to debate whether the pro setup is necessary, I'm all ears -- er, eyes.

 

Let her rip!

 

Best to All,

Mike

 

P.S. -- To the forum member who asked what our priorities are, I can assure you that except for me (who has a Journalism degree), the editors are PLAYERS first, WRITERS second, and TECHS third -- although some editors (Art and Andy, for example) are also excellent techs. And although I am a trained journalist, I'm also a working musician with 30 years experience in studios and on stage. We test almost every product at gigs -- live, studio, and/or both -- as well as test them in critical-listening "lab" environments. We absolutely try to evaluate products in real-world situations -- just the way YOU use them. It's one of my continuing frustrations that some HC'ers don't realize how "real" the GP editors actually are. But, hey, I can understand why some people don't trust magazine reviews, as well. We'll just keep trying to do our job better and earn the trust -- which is why these debates on HC are so helpful to me and the staff.

[Kevman]

So maybe you could do half of the review based upon initial (pre-setup) impressions. Second half of the review could be the real world testing /gigging/recording stuff we need to know. The over all thumbnail reviews should be based upon the (after setup) impressions with a note to what was fixed during said setup.

 

Wow.

 

BTW send them all to me. I'll set them up for free and it will be apples to apples or at least apple jacks.

[Mighty Coogna!]

Years of experience for a guitar player are like trumpeting the number of farts you've made.

 

I'd like to see a complete discography of the past & present staff. I'd like to kick myself for disparaging such a talented group. I wonder if that would work though, since everyones taste in music is different. But this isn't so much about music as it is about guitars, and reviewing them accurately and fairly.

 

I really don't see how you can do it, I don't think you can be 2 separate voices under one flag. Maybe no one can.

 

After all is said and done, I think they are valid criticisms. That's part of the game.

 

What really gets me about these agile reviews has been the difference between what dozens of independent reviewers have found, and what your one or 2 writers have found. You just wouldn't think there would be such a difference in the tone of the review. I think we keep expecting to see a "Holy {censored}, look what $300 gets you!"

And instead where seeing, "Ehh, just ok, not really good enough".

 

As an editor I'd think you'd want to consider this, rather than going into denial.

 

It's obvious, you;re a bought an sold voice - where once that voice was separate from the manufactures. And that's fine. That's how the market has evolved. I guess the point is - just be who you are.

[larryguitar]

 

Originally posted by gpeditor Hi gang... (Mostly) positive comments here. Thanks. We DO test the guitars as received -- just as you might get them in the store (or through mail order). We try to assess whether a poorly setup guitar would sound better with a decent setup -- for example, buzzy frets can typically be cured by working the action -- but several of you are right that we DO NOT take the time to do a "pro" setup after the initial tests. If you feel this would be of value, we will absolutely look into making it happen. This is the first time I've read this complaint in forums that criticize our review process, but it's certainly a fair comment, and one that deserves further study. The only logistical leaps for us are finding a baseline setup guru who is NOT on staff (to ensure apples-to-apples setup methods), and who can setup the guitars on deadline. Then there's the cost factor to GP -- meaning whether the expense is justified by a tangible upgrade to the magazine's reviews in the eyes of the majority of readers. You guys know the drill -- if I spend money on "x" amount of pro setups per issue, then I won't be spending that same amount of money elsewhere (photos, freelance articles, travel, etc.). I'm not against spending the money, but I do want to ensure that GP is benefitting from the expenditure and the necessary resource compromises that shifting bucks from one activity to another may entail. If any one has any different ideas on how to accomplish this, or if you wish to debate whether the pro setup is necessary, I'm all ears -- er, eyes. Let her rip! Best to All, Mike P.S. -- To the forum member who asked what our priorities are, I can assure you that except for me (who has a Journalism degree), the editors are PLAYERS first, WRITERS second, and TECHS third -- although some editors (Art and Andy, for example) are also excellent techs. And although I am a trained journalist, I'm also a working musician with 30 years experience in studios and on stage. We test almost every product at gigs -- live, studio, and/or both -- as well as test them in critical-listening "lab" environments. We absolutely try to evaluate products in real-world situations -- just the way YOU use them. It's one of my continuing frustrations that some HC'ers don't realize how "real" the GP editors actually are. But, hey, I can understand why some people don't trust magazine reviews, as well. We'll just keep trying to do our job better and earn the trust -- which is why these debates on HC are so helpful to me and the staff.

 

 

 

Mike,

 

First, you get some major points for reaching out to this forum. Takes cahones, as you've probably found out!

 

Couldn't you get set up with a local tech to do set-ups in exchange for mention in the magazine? Doing the 'official' set-ups for GP would bring a lot of cachet for a shop....

 

 

Larry

[Tweedledee]

 

Originally posted by larryguitar Mike, First, you get some major points for reaching out to this forum. Takes cahones, as you've probably found out! Couldn't you get set up with a local tech to do set-ups in exchange for mention in the magazine? Doing the 'official' set-ups for GP would bring a lot of cachet for a shop.... Larry

 

 

+1 on both points. I appreciate that you're willing to come here and make what appears to be a serious effort to listen to the concerns and suggestions of a group of people who buy A LOT of guitars.

 

On the second point, I bet there is a local tech would at least cut you a deal on performing set ups on all the guitars you review in exchange for a mention of their name/business, as Larry said. It's normally just a few per month, which isn't too difficult for someone who really knows what they're doing. Plus, they get the benefit of testing out new gear.

 

Aren't you guys located in San Mateo or somewhere around there? There are tons of great techs in the Bay Area.

 

As others here have mentioned, reviews that give us a sense of how a guitar arrived, what (if anything) was needed to get it into serious playing condition, and how it performed before and after such a set up would be extremely helpful. Of course this is only worth while if you aren't receiving cherry-picked guitars from the manufacturers, but rather just a normal sample like the consumer would receive.

 

I'm sure a large portion of the readers of GP know their way around a guitar pretty well and would appreciate reviews that give them a sense of what might need to be done to a particular guitar to get it up to snuff. I know which aspects of a pro set up I can perform myself so an explanation of what was done to the guitar would let me know if I could fix any problems out of the box or if I would need to have a professional do it.

 

Again, thank you for wandering in here and listening to our ideas/concerns. I think it can only help your magazine as well as the guitar-playing community.

 

Cheers.

[fuzzy4dice]

I am also against the whole "set-up" idea. I think the manufacturers and companies know that these guitars are going to be reviewed, and if they don't send them out with a proper set-up...then {censored} THEM.

 

They should send a guitar out like you would bring one to a gig: ready to roll. If they don't, then they don't care about their product and they deserve a crappy review.

 

My problem with GP is that there are no "crappy reviews". Very rarely do they really point out anything, but miniscule finish flaws and other inane things.

 

In fact, I really liked the Agile reveiw, because I thought it was fair. Re-Read the original post I made in this thread, just to recapture your bearings a little bit.

 

I kind of like that the reveiwer was blase about it rather than gushy or hateful. It's more honest that way.

 

To paraphrase the review, I'd say it was kinda like: "Yeah, it's okay, but it didn't blow my ass out."

 

There is nothing wrong with this stance.

[pipedwho]

 

Originally posted by fuzzy4dice I am also against the whole "set-up" idea. I think the manufacturers and companies know that these guitars are going to be reviewed, and if they don't send them out with a proper set-up...then {censored} THEM. They should send a guitar out like you would bring one to a gig: ready to roll. If they don't, then they don't care about their product and they deserve a crappy review.

 

 

I disagree.

 

The problem with this is that then the reviews will all be based on an unrealistic sample. Say the guitar needed to be plekked to get it to intonate properly; I'd like to know that I had to spend an extra couple of hundred after I bought the guitar to make it playable.

 

I'm not saying that GP should do that, but if they do the usual pro setup, then that level of problem can be specificially mentioned in the review. ie. you could buy this guitar, but since we couldn't get it playable, you won't be able to either. If it's a $5000 guitar, then $200 for a full on setup would not be out of question for me to spend.

[larryguitar]

Well, don't almost all guitars get tweeked before you play them? I have almost NEVER played a guitar 'as delivered', myself.

 

The real question you have to answer is twofold-'What is the guitar like as delivered' and 'What is the guitar ultimately capable of', and answering both would certainly be of value to me.

 

 

Larry

[the russ]

 

Originally posted by pipedwho I disagree. The problem with this is that then the reviews will all be based on an unrealistic sample. Say the guitar needed to be plekked to get it to intonate properly; I'd like to know that I had to spend an extra couple of hundred after I bought the guitar to make it playable. I'm not saying that GP should do that, but if they do the usual pro setup, then that level of problem can be specificially mentioned in the review. ie. you could buy this guitar, but since we couldn't get it playable, you won't be able to either. If it's a $5000 guitar, then $200 for a full on setup would not be out of question for me to spend.

 

 

if your new guitar needs to be plekked out of the box in order to be made playable, you bought the wrong guitar. send it back, because chances are it AIN'T going to get better with age!

[mielkea]

I actually thought the review was on the positive side. Really was strong on the build quality and the style, just less so on the electronics.

 

Not sure while people are getting all up in arms over this - if this was posted as a "player review" on this board, we'd all agree.

 

I say good job GP!

 

AM

[fuzzy4dice]

Originally posted by mielkea I actually thought the review was on the positive side. Really was strong on the build quality and the style, just less so on the electronics. Not sure while people are getting all up in arms over this - if this was posted as a "player review" on this board, we'd all agree. I say good job GP! AM

 

+1!

 

Further on the set-up upon arrival: I think with Agiles, we've all gotten a little too casual about the fact that something might need a set-up and new pups right out of the box!

 

As I mentioned before, the Agiles I've recieved have been fine. Could they have been tweaked to perfection? Yes. But, they were wholly playable and fine.

 

I believe everything needs a tweak out of the box, but not a $200.00 set-up. Maybe a little intonation, and string height adjustment, but a full set-up because something is virtually unplayable is kinda pushing it.

 

Seriously, if the manufacturer or seller doesn't send a good, playable copy to a Global Magazine to Review, then what do you think they are going to send Joe X who ordered online in his boxers?

 

Don't forget, the upgrades and set-ups cost money. It just doesn't seem like that much, because we never do them all at the same time. Buy a $300.00 guitar and add $300.00's worth of new parts and set-ups to it over a 12 month period and you've spent $600.00.

 

Used Gibson Les Paul's can be had for 1k if you search hard enough. Not to say they won't need a set-up...but you see where I'm going with this.

[gpeditor]

Whoa, Coogna!

 

I absolutely can't imagine what prompted such a response from you. I certainly wasn't being defensive or pompous. I was simply answering a forum member's query about the editors' focus.

 

I'm also incredulous that you're saying we're in "denial" when we're always cruising these forums and LISTENING to the opinions of HC peoples because we WANT to consider the experience and talent up here. Denial? We INCLUDE you in GP's planning and review process, and we appreciate and respect your counsel and opinions. This doesn't mean you have to dig GP or agree with everything we write, but you should, at least, factor our efforts into your assessments of our motives. That's fair -- isn't it?

 

BTW: I always invite HC'ers to come to the GP forum (www.guitarplayer.com) and rip into us if they feel we misrepresented a product. If we made a mistake, we want to know about it, and we want our readers to know about it, too. We have nothing to hide, we are not "owned" by the manufacturers, and we absolutely want to provide credible product reviews. If providing credible reviews means that we have to get schooled in front of our reader community every once in a while, then so be it. The truth is more important -- even if that truth is divided amongst myriad subjective opinions.

 

All the Best,

Mike

[fuzzy4dice]

Oh, Mighty Coonga!

 

[Polaris20]

 

Originally posted by Mighty Coogna! Years of experience for a guitar player are like trumpeting the number of farts you've made. I'd like to see a complete discography of the past & present staff. I'd like to kick myself for disparaging such a talented group. I wonder if that would work though, since everyones taste in music is different. But this isn't so much about music as it is about guitars, and reviewing them accurately and fairly.

 

 

WTF does their discography have to do with their ability to evaluate an instrument?

 

Aside from the whole setup deal I have with their reviews, I don't think they're really lacking in qualifications to review the stuff.

 

And they were pretty f'ing brutal with that SX they reviewed a couple months back, which is confirmed in the reviews here (though JJPistols says that after a good setup, they play fine). So it's not like everything's sugar coated.