Am I insane?

[JukeboxHero]

Ok. I need your opinion. I feel maybe I'm going insane.

 

I learned on a cheap-o deluxe Fender acoustic. Then I went electric. 10 years ago I wanted to rediscover my roots, so I bought a Taylor 310, which I had for a number of years. It didn't get nearly as much play as my electrics. I found the Taylor difficult to play, uncomfortable to hold, and, ironically, TOO responsive. It played wonderfully when I finger-picked, but when I strummed it, I was like a bull in a china shop. Also, it didn't have any electronics, so I finally sold it about 2 years back.

 

Thinking I needed something that would be more forgiving with my rough style, I replaced it with a Washburn D10sce. I bought it based on reviews and specs (Solid Spruce Top, laminate sides and back, built-in electronics) without ever playing one. I don't remember what I paid, but I got it new off ebay for under $200. The hardshell case I keep it in cost nearly as much as the guitar, lol!!! I thought it was easier to play than my Taylor. But from DAY 1 it sounded dead to my ears. Even with new strings, it just didn't seem to have that acoustic shimmer. Consequently, its sat in its case, unplayed, for two years. I notice that MY D10sce is a very heavy guitar, with a glossy finish. I have not yet tried other D10sce(s) to compare. But the thicker wood, combined with thicker finish, explains the "dead" sound.

 

My D10sce is well made and there are no OBVIOUS indications that I got a defective one. I'm sure thats going to be the argument, but I HIGHLY doubt that I would not be able to perceive if there was some sort of defect. So I'm going to assume I got an average one. Perhaps when I have a few extra moments, I'll go play a few at a local shop just to confirm that. But the D10sce gets awesome reviews. People love them. I've come to the conclusion that most of the reviews on here are useless because lower price = less experienced players = higher reviews. So a $5000 Martin will rate about the same as a $200 Dean. It will probably even have much of the same wording (articulate, responsive, playable, etc).... In reality, everybody with experience knows darn well that the Martin is going to sound much better than the Dean.

 

 

Ok. Here's the part where I'm going crazy...

 

Today I checked out some other low to mid priced acoustic guitars. I've always thought the playability of the Tacoma Chief made it a great guitar. I've had my eye out for one for years, but never found one cheap enough (yes, today I discovered there is a Korean version (Olympia OMC1CE) which can be had for $200).

 

ANYHOW, I think my ears are decent. They have definately improved a whole-lot in 15 years of guitar playing. I can tell you alot about a guitar just by hearing a recording... Today I went to a great little shop and had the salesman/owner play through an assortment of acoustics (I think its much easier to get a feel for the basic sound of a guitar by letting a quality player strum and fingerpick a few sounds).

 

He played through a bunch of things, priced from around $100 to about $900 (a Tacoma Chief of course). I know half-way decent guitars keep getting cheaper, but he played two Olympia guitars, a DC3 with satin finish and a DC5 with gloss finish, that I felt blew everything else under $900 away, including a number of Guilds. The Guilds sounded great, but had a darker, more mellow/bluesy sound. Comparing the Guilds, the choice was a matter of personal preference. But comparing everything else, I would have a difficult time believing that anybody would think they sounded better than those two Olympias. I didn't spend alot of time comparing it to the Tacoma because the Chief was out of my price range. But even against the Chief, the Olympia held its own. Not ONE of the Deans, from $150 to $650 came even remotely-close. They all sounded like shoeboxes compared to either Olympia.

 

And, I feel, the Olympia blew my Washburn out of the water. It wasn't even a close comparison.

 

So am I going crazy? I just payed $100 for this DC3. How can a $100 sound better than $650 guitars? The kicker is that the DC3 is a laminate top!!! Its not even solid wood. The DC5 was solid spruce, but the DC3 was laminate spruce.

 

Is this even possible? I have a hard time believing its even possible. And its not like I had my heart set on an Olympia. I initially didn't want either of them because I wanted something with a cutaway. Of course, the cutaway has a (arguably) negative impact on the bass response, so perhaps this explains SOME of the improvement...

 

I hate things like this. I thought I understood the basic principles of guitars enough to say this could not possibly be. Then, I go look at the reviews for the DC3 and its not even anything special. This is where I felt maybe I was going crazy.

 

I'm crazy. It has to be. I don't believe a $100 LAMINATE guitar can sound better than REAL guitars from REAL brands costing MUCH more money. I just don't believe it. I'm crazy.

[UGB]

Washburn builds the crap outta guitars and thus they last forever, however, you certainly sacrafice some volume and tone dynamics with that construction. That said, I've never played a laminate top guitar that sounded smoother than a solid top, even a low end solid top. I wouldn't buy a D10SCE for it's unplugged tone anyway; it's a great sounding guitar plugged in and a bargin for a great sounding plugged in A/E at that.

[JukeboxHero]

 

Originally posted by UGB Washburn builds the crap outta guitars and thus they last forever, however, you certainly sacrafice some volume and tone dynamics with that construction. That said, I've never played a laminate top guitar that sounded smoother than a solid top, even a low end solid top. I wouldn't buy a D10SCE for it's unplugged tone anyway; it's a great sounding guitar plugged in and a bargin for a great sounding plugged in A/E at that.

 

 

There's no arguing that the D10SCE sounds pretty good plugged in. The D3 doesn't even have electronics. So you're saying that most people just assume, when talking D10SCE tone, that we're talking about plugged-in tone, not acoustic?

 

I suppose that makes sense. The D10SCE would make a nice performance guitar. Its probably somewhat resistant to feedback, as far as acoustics go. The D10SCE has three things going against its unplugged tone; (1) wood-girth, (2) cutaway, (3) gloss finish.

 

Ok. I feel better. Maybe I'm not going insane. I just wasn't aware the washburn had a very specific intended purpose. Ok. I can tell you a good unplugged acoustic tone when I hear it, but I guess I need to learn more about the construction and whats good for what purpose....

[Freeman Keller]

The Guitar Sample sticky at the top of the page is a good way to listen to quality guitars unplugged. Listen to the differences in tonewoods and shapes/sizes. Go to the Maury clips to hear it with Martins.

 

Then throw everything out the window when you plug it in....

 

In my opinion you are doing one thing very right - by both playing it yourself and having someone else play you get to hear both sides of the guitar. Frequently guitars hanging around stores have pretty dead strings - do you think that is influencing what you are hearing? I can't comment on Washburns, Olympia or laminates however....

[JukeboxHero]

 

Originally posted by Freeman Keller The Guitar Sample sticky at the top of the page is a good way to listen to quality guitars unplugged. Listen to the differences in tonewoods and shapes/sizes. Go to the Maury clips to hear it with Martins. Then throw everything out the window when you plug it in.... In my opinion you are doing one thing very right - by both playing it yourself and having someone else play you get to hear both sides of the guitar. Frequently guitars hanging around stores have pretty dead strings - do you think that is influencing what you are hearing? I can't comment on Washburns, Olympia or laminates however....

 

 

Well, that COULD be a factor. I don't know. The guy demoing the guitars was the owner and he seemed fairly diligent about informing me when a guitar needed a string change, but who knows how many times he was not aware how old the strings were... And what is the "magical" set point at which guitars need new strings? ... So How can anybody ever resolve that issue, except to walk in and announce "new strings on all guitars, on me boys!"?... I suppose if I was Peter Frampton, thats just what I would do! Or better yet, if I was Peter Frampton, I would tell the owner to set aside all the guitars in a certain price range, restring them, and plan on meeting me after hours one evening.

 

I'll be experimenting and checking out the sound samples though.. Sounds interesting. Thanks!

[Freeman Keller]

Whatever your feelings about coated strings (love 'em, hate 'em) they generally last a lot longer than uncoated. Many people feel that many of the Martins hanging in shops with ther original SP's sound pretty dead, while Taylors with their Elixers at least sound alive. I was interested in an OM-21 in a local shop but it just didn't have that sparkle, so I asked them to restring it - which they did - and it did make a big difference. I don't think that is unreasonable - strings really aren't that expensive. I didn't buy the OM but I know that for a month or so it sounded as good as it could for someone else.

 

I would say that if you are A/B'ing a couple of guitars and really serious about buying one of them ask the shop to restring both with the same strings that you plan to use - put the same 80/20's or PB's or whatever on them and rule that out as a difference.