|
05 Feb 10 - 05:39 PM (#2831007) Subject: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: olddude Ok this is not a scientific test but the recordings done on the same exact mic setup, the first is my 1969 D-28 Martin cost well a bunch The second is my Alvarez ... cost 400 bucks or less anywhere, The martin Brazilian rose wood, the Alvarez Indian Rosewood D28 Alvarez Now not on a recording I can hear the difference but recording they are pretty darn close .. do we make too much out of expensive guitars |
|
05 Feb 10 - 05:45 PM (#2831010) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: olddude Alvarez just a little more tinny to my ear but it isn't near as old or played near as much .. hmmmm |
|
05 Feb 10 - 05:52 PM (#2831013) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: olddude I would love to do this with a real quality guitar under 300 bucks, like a seagull S6 |
|
05 Feb 10 - 06:04 PM (#2831027) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: Phil Cooper I played both files in the hi-fi setting just now. They both sounded pretty good to me. I used to have an alvarez, myself, that I thought had a sound that rivaled a lot of more expensive guitars (a tree of life model that sold for $335 new in 1978 prices). I didn't one sounded particularly tinny. I do like quoting Mr. Rogers and say the most important part of a guitar's sound is the player. |
|
05 Feb 10 - 06:23 PM (#2831050) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: olddude Thanks Phil it is a fun test, sometimes I think we make too much out of our expensive gear (especially me) |
|
05 Feb 10 - 06:55 PM (#2831084) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: Melissa I wish you'd had mine to put in the experiment..I rarely get to hear it played well and would kind of like to listen to the comparison. Fun test, Dan. |
|
05 Feb 10 - 09:51 PM (#2831214) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: Ebbie Interesting test. To my ear, the D sounded much woodier and richer, the Alvarez higher pitched. HOWEVER. It is easy for me to fool myself. For that reason I wish you had posted the links as #1 and #2 and see what our reports would be. Want to try it again? :) |
|
05 Feb 10 - 09:55 PM (#2831217) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: olddude good idea i will do that ebbie, its fun |
|
05 Feb 10 - 10:00 PM (#2831227) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: Melissa Will you add a third guitar to the second round, Dan? I'll be able to tell which of these two are which..and guessing is fun! |
|
05 Feb 10 - 10:31 PM (#2831247) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: olddude Ok which one is the martin this is number 2 two this is number 1 number 1 |
|
05 Feb 10 - 10:32 PM (#2831250) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: olddude wish I could hon, my other one is a classical |
|
05 Feb 10 - 10:32 PM (#2831251) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: Melissa are we supposed to guess aloud, or wait? |
|
05 Feb 10 - 11:02 PM (#2831275) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: olddude go ahead and guess I will tell ya in a day ok? |
|
05 Feb 10 - 11:10 PM (#2831282) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: Melissa 2 |
|
06 Feb 10 - 08:58 AM (#2831314) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: Bert It's a well known phenomenon called "Peter's Placebo" which states that "An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance" |
|
06 Feb 10 - 10:16 AM (#2831370) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: olddude so true Bert, we sure do see it in many of the pop costumes and other things. I did an open mike recently, a guy came in with a beautiful taylor, cowboy hat, cloths the whole nine yards ... but .. wasn't very good, actually kinda bad but God Bless him, he tries .. but he did have the image down pat. |
|
06 Feb 10 - 12:34 PM (#2831461) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: olddude My luthier friend that worked for Martin and does all the expensive repairs told me recently that any guitar with some half decent wood will sound great if the geometry is correct. I have to believe him |
|
06 Feb 10 - 12:56 PM (#2831474) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: Ebbie I also say the Martin is Number 2. |
|
06 Feb 10 - 01:28 PM (#2831499) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: olddude on my music page south bound train was played with the Alaverz and St. James Infirmary with the Martin same as In the jailhouse now... I know a few people who said they don't use their Martins recording because the big bass and sustained highs that a less expensive guitar works better. I don't know it that is true, there is mikes and mike placement and quality of the recording software and skill of the recording tech and so on .. On a couch at home you can hear the difference, performing anywhere with a mike .. I doubt it ... just a fun test. |
|
06 Feb 10 - 01:37 PM (#2831513) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: Maryrrf I think maybe the Martin is number 1. But, there isn't really very much difference between the guitar sound in the recordings. Old Dude, I think you are a very good guitarist with a sensitive way of picking and very good timing. I think you'd make any guitar sound good. |
|
06 Feb 10 - 03:25 PM (#2831607) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: Melissa I went guitar shopping with a friend a week or so ago. She used to play and has suddenly decided to trim her nails and play again. We went to a music store where I played probably a half-dozen in the lower price range. The first one I grabbed (cheapest) was the one we kept going back to. Then, I went to higher cost while we played/sang in a corner. We made a trip back a couple days later so she could buy a new 12-string for $139. It played better and sounded better than any of the others I got in my hands. She will play that one. A more expensive guitar would sit in the corner..but she bought the one she liked best. I think far too much emphasis (this is where I sort of get back to the topic) for Beginners is on name brand, which generally means 'more expensive' It seems to me that a person who starts out on a guitar they can afford..and that they like..is more likely to stick with it. Getting one that fits your budget easier keeps from making any 'I shouldn't have spent that money' guilt. Getting one that isn't a Name played by your favorite role model cuts down on unrealistic expectation and frustration. Some cheap guitars are pretty dang good and it's no use having an expensive one that you're too afraid of to use. The good thing about folks advising/pushing beginners to start out on high-end/Name instruments is that it means somebody gets a pretty good deal later when the guitar is set out at a yard sale. |
|
06 Feb 10 - 03:32 PM (#2831617) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: olddude Absolutely right on Melissa, if you look at ebay, there are ton of quite expensive guitars going for a third of their cost all with the line "I was going to learn how to play" or "played it for a couple of weeks" the best thing is an action that someone can play. The expensive stuff comes later and is good in regard to the sound but also they increase in value and can be handed down .. Me I would think a uses seagull S6 kinda fits both worlds, they are great guitars or one of the rosewood Alvarez or a dozen others I can think of. My friend Garry got an epiphone for 99 bucks delivered and as a starter, nice action not a bad sound (laminate) |
|
06 Feb 10 - 03:43 PM (#2831626) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: Bert When I first bought a guitar I bought a cheap one thinking that I'll get a better one later when I've learned enough to tell the difference. But I never did 'learn enough' - Ah well! |
|
06 Feb 10 - 04:38 PM (#2831694) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: olddude Well from what I hear Bert you are pretty dang good with that thing |
|
06 Feb 10 - 04:41 PM (#2831702) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: GUEST,999 IMO, I don't care what make any guitar is. If the sound is good and the action OK, that's a good guitar. |
|
06 Feb 10 - 06:20 PM (#2831807) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: Don Firth Bert: "It's a well known phenomenon called 'Peter's Placebo' which states that 'An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance.'" Indeed! Back in the early 1970s, I dropped into The Rosewood Guitar in Seattle, a shop that handles only the finest quality classic guitars. They did have good quality "student guitars" there that sold for around $300 on up, but you could drop $3,000 on up in that shop quite easily. But you'd leave with a guitar that you could walk out on a concert stage with and feel well equipped. Steve Novacek (himself a concert guitarist with a couple of records out) and I sat around one afternoon trying out a shipment of student guitars he'd just got in. I was looking for a "second guitar" that would be good enough to use for performances, but not so expensive that it couldn't be replaced fairly easily. Steve and I agreed on one as sounding the best of the whole lot, a Japanese-made "Guitarra Artisana," imported as a student guitar by José Oribé of San Diego, a luthier who made fairly pricey concert quality guitars. A darn nice sounding, nice playing instrument for $350, plus $50 for a good hard-shell case. Following the practice of many of the Japanese guitar makers at the time, the "Artisana" looked exactly like the José Ramirez concert guitar that Andrés Segovia was playing at the time. Red cedar soundboard, Brazilian rosewood back and sides, and the inlay work around the soundhole and the shape of the headstock were exactly the same as those of a Ramirez. I'm a member of the Seattle Classic Guitar society, and one evening, for a change of pace at their monthly meetings, they asked me to sing a program of folk songs and ballads. I accompanied myself on my nice, shiny new Japanese-made imitation Ramirez. There was a lot of high-priced wood floating around those meetings, and a number of members owned the same model Ramirez that Segovia played. My new guitar sounded darned good from the stage, and I was most pleased with it. And since it sounded full and mellow, and it looked exactly like a Ramirez, everybody—including the Ramirez owners—automatically assumed that it was a Ramirez. Considering that the Ramirez ran around $3500 at the time and my guitar had cost $350, and people couldn't tell them apart unless they looked through the soundhole and read the label, I'd say that was a pretty good buy! Still got it. Still sounds great! Very nice instrument. Especially so, considering what I paid for it! Don Firth |
|
06 Feb 10 - 08:52 PM (#2831925) Subject: RE: Sound test cheap vs expensive for fun From: Bert Not true olddude, I started too late in life to ever be good. I do claim to be a good singer though, and I try to sing well enough that nobody notices my guitar playing. |