Yamaha LS6 v. LS16?

[outdoorgb]

I'll put on my interweb commando hat and chime in...

I own an LS6 and have played it side-by-side with an LS16, LJ6, and LJ16.

 

I'm a 15-month hardcore noob so with that in mind...I did not notice a huge difference between the 6 and 16 models...I had already bought the LS6 new online but am in the market for a new jumbo or MJ.

 

I chose the 6 series because I want to take this guitar with me on travles locally (MIL, friends, small gigs...). I believed the lam to be more stable for that...

 

Now, here is some data on string spacing taken on my guitars, outside E to outside e with 12-54's:

Larrivee L03R: nut 1.532 saddle 2.220

Yamaha LS6: nut 1.488 saddle 2.134

Blueridge Dread nut 1.431 saddle 2.107

 

The Larrivee and Yamaha list a 1.75" nut but the spacing, as you can see, is different. I addapted and am of normal size. If you have stubby little fingers I feel fingering near the soundhole may be an issue. IMO...

 

Good luck.

.

[rjoxyz]

 

The Larrivee and Yamaha list a 1.75" nut but the spacing, as you can see, is different. I addapted and am of normal size. If you have stubby little fingers I feel fingering near the soundhole may be an issue. IMO... Good luck. .

 

 

Thanks for that. I have an L-09 (and once owned an L-03 and OM-03R) and am very comfortable with the Larrivee spacing. Your comparison is helpful to me in considering the LS.

 

I fingerpick pretty much with the very tip of my finger and a bit of nail, and haven't had a right hand issue with any nut. The wider spacing is more forgiving if fretting gets a little sloppy. My fingers are not all that wide, but don't really taper, so I am prone to inadvertent muting of adjacent strings at times with narrower string spacing.

[AndrewGG]

 

I read my initial post and realize it sounds at least borderline stupid. Way too subjective. My assumption was that the all-solid version should be well worth the additional cost, and $750 is not too high for a decent solid guitar. I heard people raving over the tone and construction of the LS6 and was compelled to ask. Your response was not what I was expecting. Can't say I've heard of a lam back/side being picked over an identical or closely similar model of solid wood. Interesting. Does the 26 sound compressed in comparison to the "typical" all solid 000/OM, or does the 6 sound more "open" than it should?

 

 

Firstly, do bear in mind I'm talking about the LL model and I'm making an assumption that, given similar woods, finish and construction, comparisons between different models in the range are valid. The LL6 is the louder of the two with a more pronounced midrange, more obvious fundamentals and is the more aggressive sounding of the two. The LL26 is subtler, has a more subdued mid and has the edge over the 6 in terms of sympathetic harmonics and sustain; I prefer it for quieter, laid-back fingerstyle.

As I said, both are excellent but the 6 keeps drawing me in.

Both guitars have identical setups and are strung with Elixir 80/20 Nanoweb lights; 12-53.

[Gary Palmer]

I definitely agree 6's tend to have a tighter/brighter sounding output than 16's and 26's and feel this is directly connected with the use of laminate back and side sets. In my experience, the use of good quality laminates can initially lead to more consistant results than work involving solids, but - in turn - tonal output typically tends to remain fairly static. This is in comparison to the way in which the resonance of their solid timber counterparts can mature well beyond the capacity of laminates over a much shorter playing period.

 

So much depends upon how often they're played or driven.