High End builders compared to the big three mass builders

[hifivic]

Originally Posted by RP

I'm sure you're correct, to an extent; but let's not forget that boutique and high end builders also appeal to those with the financial wherewithal and the need to buy certain branded guitars for their collectability and snob appeal. Just look at the number(s) of folks who just had to have a Henderson in the aftermath of the publication of Clapton's Guitar despite having no clue as to what they sounded like and never having visited Rugby, VA....

One man's roof..........the same can be said for owning a Taylor or Martin

[HHP]

Originally Posted by RP

I'm sure you're correct, to an extent; but let's not forget that boutique and high end builders also appeal to those with the financial wherewithal and the need to buy certain branded guitars for their collectability and snob appeal. Just look at the number(s) of folks who just had to have a Henderson in the aftermath of the publication of Clapton's Guitar despite having no clue as to what they sounded like and never having visited Rugby, VA....

I think the appeal there was to have an association to Clapton, not Henderson. Don't think any small builders really count on being an object of desire as 99.999% of their customers are more demanding of performance more than panache.

[iim7V7IM7]

In simple terms:

FACTORY:
- Materials purchased in mass +
- Dimensionally consistent processes +
- Owner auditions & likes

SMALL SHOP:
- Materials purchased in smaller quantities +
- Dimensionally consistent processes +
- Tuned to a subjective target not knowing the end player +
- Owner auditions & likes

LUTHIER:
- Materials hand selected by a luthier +
- Dimensionally adjusted based on material properties to a subjective target knowing the end player’s goals +
- Owner buys on faith

[RP]

Originally Posted by hifivic

One man's roof..........the same can be said for owning a Taylor or Martin

I agree 100%....

Originally Posted by HHP

I think the appeal there was to have an association to Clapton, not Henderson. Don't think any small builders really count on being an object of desire as 99.999% of their customers are more demanding of performance more than panache.

I don't think that Henderson was well known outside of country/bluegrass circles so the Henderson "boom" was likely based on the association with Clapton. That said, isn't association with a performer who plays a certain handmade guitar the avenue by which some/many particular lesser-known builders become better known and then in-demand? I honestly don't know enough about small builders to know whether and to what extent association with artists helps but I would think it's significant since artist endorsements are so commonly used in advertising....

[jpbrooks]

Thanks for the insightful replies. What I am curious about is a general idea of what each of those most well-known boutique brands are known for in terms of tone. For example, Martin is know for strong bass, Taylor for bright and clear tone (note separation) These are generalizations I hear all the time and while not true for every one of those brands that I have played, I have found those generalizations to be mostly on point.

I originally asked to compare to one of the big three makers, because I have played a large number of those so it would give me a point of reference.

Again, really just curious about a group of guitars that get such high reviews by owners that I have never had the opportunity to play.

[hifivic]

Originally Posted by jpbrooks

Thanks for the insightful replies. What I am curious about is a general idea of what each of those most well-known boutique brands are known for in terms of tone. For example, Martin is know for strong bass, Taylor for bright and clear tone (note separation) These are generalizations I hear all the time and while not true for every one of those brands that I have played, I have found those generalizations to be mostly on point.

I originally asked to compare to one of the big three makers, because I have played a large number of those so it would give me a point of reference.

Again, really just curious about a group of guitars that get such high reviews by owners that I have never had the opportunity to play.

"Tone" is subjective so consider this as perhaps even more important attributes to ponder instead of "this one has more bass, this one is brighter"...........consistency, individual string balance concerning both amplitude and sustain is what separates the "big three" (to quote you) from the smaller higher end builders as well as fit and finish. This is achieved because of the extra time they take to build their product. The big three build between 50 and 70 THOUSAND guitars a year vs 200-1200 for what you are describing as the higher end smaller builders. Happy hunting!

[zmf]

Originally Posted by jpbrooks

What I am curious about is a general idea of what each of those most well-known boutique brands are known for in terms of tone.

It really is not that simple.

For example, I consider Collings dreads and OMs to be too bright, strident, piano-like, with run-on sustain. Others love Collings and might say that my sense of brightness is their sense of mid-range clarity.

On the other hand, I really like Collings 12-fret 000's because of their authority/power without the brightness.

So which is the signature sound of Collings?

Here's a simple generalization: Bourgeois guitars typically have a richer, more mellow tone than Collings. Wonder how many would agree.

[hifivic]

Originally Posted by zmf

It really is not that simple.

Here's a simple generalization: Bourgeois guitars typically have a richer, more mellow tone than Collings. Wonder how many would agree.

Agreed 100%

[Pitar]

Originally Posted by RP

I think that the results of some blind playing tests would sorely disappoint some buyers of higher end guitars, be they factory built, boutique, or one-offs. I would insist that, contrary to popular opinion, we do hear with our eyes to a certain extent....

The aural visionaries do exist in large numbers. I must say the boutique competitors produce some very appealing aesthetics and I respect that as much as anyone. But, of them I've experienced few I can honestly claim the sound was remarkable.

There are small builders who produce these deeply resonant and projecting sound boxes that literally transmit their sound into the chest. It can be a precious thing to experience. But, they are pretty much limited by what they can do. I had one that was acceptable with a hand towel placed in the body to dampen the resonance. After the session the towel had to be removed to prevent it from dehumidifying the guitar. First world problem, right?

So, yea, it comes down to the individual guitar rather than the builder, and that pretty much levels the playing field inside the ear. If a boutique build and a mass produced model compete in the ear, and the budget allows, go for the aesthetics and bragging rights. In the case of the latter, I know marginal players who feel some sort of kinship vindication because they have the best of the best.

[zombywoof]

Originally Posted by L20A

Isn't is great to be living in a time where there are so many wonderful guitars for us to lust over.

You also have to count the guys out there like Scott Baxendale doing conversions on old Harmonys, Kays and what have you. Just adds choices to a decision already weighed down by the number of choices available.

[Truckjohn]

Its absolutely a fantastic time to love guitars. There is almost anything out there you could want... From ultra modern stuff to reproductions of
ancient instruments.

To Zombywoof's point - we even have guys like Todd Cambio at Fraulini and our own Steve Chipman and Brad Goodman making even better versions of the old Harmony, Oscar Schmidt, Holtzapfel, Regal, Larson, and Galiano 6 and 12 strings.... Add to those guys people like John How and Haans Brentup which recently hung up their tools.. It's a great time to like guitars....

[jrb715]

Originally Posted by zmf

It really is not that simple.


Here's a simple generalization: Bourgeois guitars typically have a richer, more mellow tone than Collings. Wonder how many would agree.

Absolutely agree across the line.

[Mr. Jelly]

I think the OP got one answer to his question.
To me Santa Cruz guitars have more refinement in their tone and are more balanced compared to a Martin. They also play nicer than Martins. Martins have a bass sound that comes out as a rumble or growl that is present even in their 00 12 frets. All generally speaking of coarse. I can't speak of the other guitars you asked about.

[jrb715]

Originally Posted by RP

I think that the results of some blind playing tests would sorely disappoint some buyers of higher end guitars, be they factory built, boutique, or one-offs. I would insist that, contrary to popular opinion, we do hear with our eyes to a certain extent....

I think that folks hear with their wallets as often and as definitively. The pricey small shop guitar is really just a rip off; or the boutique guitar is better because it's more expensive.

My first exposure to small shop guitars--what I suppose one can think of as high end guitars: though Martin now has its own high end guitars; and you can certainly spec a Taylor to hurt your wallet--was sort of a blind test. I didn't think anything could sound better than a Martin. (I have an HD 28 that's pretty wonderful.) When I played a couple of brands of guitars I'd never heard of at a shop that carried guitars in addition to their Martins and Taylors, I was shocked at how good they sounded, and didn't know they were more expensive than a Martin--I assumed they were less. It was both a relief and a problem when I learned that they cost more.

[Rmz76]

Originally Posted by RP

I think that the results of some blind playing tests would sorely disappoint some buyers of higher end guitars, be they factory built, boutique, or one-offs. I would insist that, contrary to popular opinion, we do hear with our eyes to a certain extent....

This reminds of the "blind" test of Parlor guitars survey I did here a few year sago. Following the blind test I altered the top post to include details on the guitars, but when originally posted with the survey I hid all information about the guitars. The guitars ranged from a $150 Ibanez instrument up to a Martin John Mayer "Stagecoach" signature edition costing around $9000. I'll provide a link to that form post but spoiler altert--- The cheapest guitar ranked the best and the most expensive the worst.

http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...d.php?t=389623

There was some variance in degrees of signal processing on each recording, but in the case of two of the guitars: Blueridge BR-371 - $1200 and the Martin John Mayer signature $9,500. Both audio clips came from Murray's Music. Same mic and recording setup, same signal processing with the same player (Spoon Philips who is a great musician and regular here on AGF) playing the same compositions. You can't get a much better recorded A-B test. When a $1000 Asia built "knock off" is preferred by over 45% more people than the Martin costing almost 10x as much, to me that does mean something and it says something about just how much weight people put into that name on the headstock.

For those with a large collection of high end guitars you will always get resistance when it comes to this. Even many of those who say "name on headstock doesn't matter" aren't likely to cash out their collection of Martin's, Collings, Santa Cruz, etc... We live in a society where even if we don't want to admit it, a big part of our perceived worth in this world comes from our little collection of tangibles. Size of house we live in, type of car we drive and the $$$ value of the guitars we play (which may or may not correlate to popular brand names) all bear meaning and the thought that cheaper market disrupting products could actually be better in some ways is just not something many want to deal with or mentally are capable of.... There's a protocol to Consumerism that makes the game of life a giant game of Monopoly and even if that's not what it's all about that theme is a subplot to all our lives. After all the saying "you get what you pay for" is engraved in our consciousness. This leads people to believe that everything you can buy must be categorized in such a way that it's dollar value makes it great or less great. But the problem with instruments is that they are both ornamented collectives and they are also tools

If I want a screwdriver to open my Macbook Pro I'll need a Torx Driver P5. It's a micro-driver and I can buy a generic one at Frys Electronics for about $6.00. I could spend $20.00 on a brand name screwdriver that's almost the same size but just a tad larger. In this case the brand name product can't get the job done and if it can it will take a lot more effort and could damage the screws in the process. It's less effective at helping me get to my goal even if by some measure it is a superior product; it's the wrong tool for the job. This is what you run into with guitars. i've heard some musicians say "they aren't tools to me" well, Ok. I get that they do not want to think of them like that because that makes the guitar seem less personal, but the reality is THEY ARE TOOLS. Because their unique body styles, playablity and voicing makes different types of guitars better suited for certain genres. It escapes me how something that should be common sense seems so difficult to grasp by so many people.

if you were raised in the United States, you've been programmed from a very young age through advertising, entertainment and by everyone around you that this is a big part of life. Good or bad, this is just reality. It's part of American life and it keeps things interesting. But you have to rise above that thinking and realize all products are valued at the most the free market will allow the vendor to sell them for and dollar amount is rarely just the sum of the labor, distribution and material cost!!! When you pay more for brand name products you usually do get a great product but that doesn't mean some other vendor isn't offering a product at the same quality for less. Without the same brand value they may have to sell for less and the brand name vendor could be selling for more just because they can. Common sense, but people become brand loyalist and they want to pretend this isn't the case.

You have to keep that in mind and realize for those who can break away from common thinking a lot of money can be saved.