[Doubleneck]

Originally Posted by alohachris

Aloha Friends,

No one is against true innovation, but Lloyd Baggs has a habit of introducing product after product - aimed solely at entry-level markets - that do not do a very good job of helping players (especially pro's) make their acoustic guitars sound much like acoustic guitars, IMO. We the players are much more innovative than the manufacturers like Baggs have been.

And once you get through the slick marketing, it's not much of an innovation at all. You could accomplish more with a quality external or internal condenser mic & some good EQ on your own - with more complete EQ control - than you'll ever achieve with a Lyric & it's "innovative" selective PZM EQ aimed at helping you control a mic. What rubbish! That's not innovation! It's pre-release marketing. This product has given me the ability to use the Doubleneck in a band situation with a decent acoustic tone, other solutions were much more problematic.

So much of Bagg's products are based on the same old tired, unnatural-sounding concept of UST technology which requires a lot of EQ to make it even mildy useable for players, IME.

C'mon, let's use some common sense & our ears objectively here. My ears, for many decades now, tell me that Baggs' products induce ear fatigue after a set or so. Most have been so mid-rangey my ears hurt. Even the Anthem does not allow the player full, separate EQ control of its Element UST & the factory PZM EQ controlled mic. Why not? Where's the true innovation in that limitation for the player? It's all about marketing at Baggs, not true innovation.

Therefore, Baggs is a brand that I ignore & do not trust. It's all about natural acoustic tone for me. And Baggs doesn't get me there. None of it.

So why should I trust that the PZM EQ-adjusted new mic from Baggs will improve upon my live sound in any way? He's not into mic's or noted as a mic manufacturer. It's market share he's after. And Slick Marketing to the entry-level will get it for him.

Apologies to those who love their Baggs sound. If it works for you, great. But there are simply too many who fawn over the latest from Baggs & don't ask the basic question: will it help me achieve a more natural, amplified acoustic sound in the venues I play.

So far, for me? Not at all.

alohachris

PS: There has NOT been much innovation at all in pickup systems for acoustic or electric guitars in the last 40 years in terms of the basic technologies. It's pretty much the same: UST's, piezo's & magnetic's (& modeling from Fishman), That's it. It's just that some players get better use out of what's available by putting their own rigs together from parts made by different manufacturers than others do. The players are simply more innovative & creative than the manufacturers.

Heck, many of us were using cobbled-together. dual-source pickup systems decades before Baggs & Fishman packaged their proprietary ones. The innovation is by the players, not the manufacturers in terms of amplifying acoustic guitars. As it must be. Michael Hedges' live sound & signal chain did not come from a single manufacturer or stock pickup systems. Neither did Jimi's for that matter. It came from their imaginations & requirements for their music.-alohachris-

Use of a pressure zone Microphone is not true innovation? Who else has done this? I have used it in a Doubleneck acoustic and it does hear the whole soundboard balancing the two bridges when no other pickup seemed to do so. For my rather unique application it has be a awesome thing. Is it perfect no, but I actually see it as as an attempt to get pass the piezo past and into something that is truely different. As for concentrating on the mass market, that is the reality of business, nothing wrong with trying to supply the masses with simple solutions.