So what's wrong with 'balanced'?

[d03nut]

The other day I came upon a review of a BR140 in what I believe was a British guitar mag. What caught my eye more than anything else was the reviewer's opinion that to qualify an acoustic as balanced ia at best a "back-handed compliment". That what that implies is a no-personality, nothing to grab your attention, flat-sounding instrument.

 

Giving into generalizations, I would expect the die-hard Martin camp (which by the way Blueridge is trying to cater to) to kind of agree with the above argument. But is that reviewer's assessment really the prevalent preference here at the HC as well?

 

Most reviews I've read point to 'balanced' as a good thing. However, judging by BR's apparent success, maybe such reviews aren't that representative.

 

What say you?

[guit30]

Have played a Br-160, which I would say exceptional for price, 140 is mahogany D-18 version
Jim


:confused:

:cry:
:wave: :wave:

[t60 fan]

Originally posted by Tioga_Man I think that if that's all you can say, then the guitar is missing something. I don't know what I think about an unbalanced guitar. Maybe there are some unbalanced guitars that offer something unique and desirable. But all other qualities being equal, I'd probably take a balanced guitar.

 

 

 

I have never had the chance to try a Blueridge, so about that particular guitar or brand I cannot comment. To my ear a Larrivee has what I would call a "balanced" sound, particularly in their L series. And I consider that a definite plus.

[JasmineTea]

What body size are we talking about? I like a dread to be a little bottem heavey.

Balanced IMO, means all the notes are about the same volume. I have an OM and a 000 that fit this description. Balanced.

Furthermore, "balanced" is not a tone-word, it's an EQ-word.

[guit30]

Definitely very well balanced, with good bottom end, Larrivee OM03 balanced, but not much bottom end
Jim
:wave:

[riffmeister]

Tommy Emmanuel plays one of those "balanced" OM's. Silly man.

[hempomatic]

On one side of balanced, you have the shimmering highs of a Grand Concert size Taylor, and on the other end of balanced, you have the huge bottom of a Martin D28. Somewhere in the middle tone-wise is Collings, Bourgeous, Larivee, Santa Cruz, etc. Certainly NOT a bad thing, being balanced. However, if balanced is the only positive thing you can say, it probably is a pretty bland sound.

[kwakatak]

IMO I don't think there's anything wrong with having a "balanced" guitar as your one and only. For some styles - like fingerpicking - a balanced tone is pretty important.

[gonzoid]

Hmm.. balanced... most players I know would consider this a good thing.

1) All notes open or fingered are about the same volume (no dead notes or extra loud positions on the neck)

2) All notes (open strings or fingered)
have substantially similar sonority.
You should not be able to tell which notes are on an open string by ear ( BTW most inexpensive guitars fail this latter test).

3) There is an entirely different aspect:
The balance of high, mid and low spectrum in the guitar's voice.
E.g.: Some guitars are loud, with a boomy bass and lacking high end.
Other guitars have too much high end ( e.g.: the so called "carbon" sound of RainSong guitars.