Santa Cruz OM vs. OM/PW

NAFIGATOR · #1 08-28-2010, 08:56 PM

I wonder if anyone has an experience comparing SC OM and SC OM/PW side by side. I would be curious to hear some opinions. Their site praises OM and talks about how SC OM is so versatile and popular, that it forced Martin to re-introduce it in it's model line. And then you go the OM/PW page and it goes about "traditional balance of bass predominance and warmth of tone found in the treasured Pre-war vintage guitars."

Now, what I am curious about is actual experience of the players. I am not trying to determine which one is "better", as obviously there is no such thing. Just opinions, you know... Thanks.

brian a. · #2 08-28-2010, 10:16 PM

On several occasions I have compared the SCGC OM and OM/PW side-by-side. Both are wonderful guitars with exceptional playability and tone. Each time I have thought the OM/PW felt and sounded more like the vintage 1930's Martins I have played and owned.

tadol · #3 08-28-2010, 10:17 PM

I know lots of people have expressed their love for the PW, and because of that, I bought one - it was very nice. The site description is pretty accurate - little more bottom, little more boomy maybe. Then I had an opportunity to get the OM, and I decided I definitely liked it better. More balance, plenty of bottom but no boom, very well balanced and sounds great plugged in.

You really got to play them whenever you can - They have unique voices, both in the builds as well as the woods - SCGC and Richard Hoover can dial in the best any piece of wood can give.

sfden1 · #4 08-29-2010, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadol

I know lots of people have expressed their love for the PW, and because of that, I bought one - it was very nice. The site description is pretty accurate - little more bottom, little more boomy maybe. Then I had an opportunity to get the OM, and I decided I definitely liked it better. More balance, plenty of bottom but no boom, very well balanced and sounds great plugged in.

You really got to play them whenever you can - They have unique voices, both in the builds as well as the woods - SCGC and Richard Hoover can dial in the best any piece of wood can give.

This, although I like the "a little more bottom, little more boom" of the OMPW, but the better balance of the SC OM is very nice too. They're both great guitars, a bit different. As Tadol mentioned, you really have to play them both and decide for yourself which pleases your ear more. Sort of like the difference between rosewood and mahogany.

roberts · #5 08-29-2010, 09:55 AM

The PW is appointed a little more simply. Aside from that the major difference between the two is that forward shifted bracing is standard on the PW and an option on the "regular" OM. My OM has this option and it's tight and yes, boomy, but this is what I set out for. I've yet to play a SCGC OM of any type that wasn't superb....Robert

Glennwillow · #6 08-29-2010, 12:43 PM

I recently (in the last 3 weeks) acquired a new Santa Cruz OM/PW, and I am very much in agreement with comments already made. The OM/PW has quite a bit more bass. It is a simply appointed guitar, and I like that. But the darker sonic character of the guitar took some getting used to. I very much disliked the sound of the guitar with the factory installed Elixir nano PB light strings. I then tried D'Addario EJ16 (light PB), found some improvement, but was still unhappy. When I tried Martin SP/Marquis 80/20 bronze lights I was finally very happy. For me, the guitar needed some treble sparkle to lay over the darker contrasting overtones. Now it sounds very rich but with the right amount of trebles.

Your mileage, of course, should you try this, may vary....

- Glenn

Rexfordbridge · #7 08-29-2010, 12:54 PM

Guitars are funny because I played the OM/PW and thought it was MUCH better than the OM. I found the OM to be boomy and the treble muted. Some people like this sound. That's why there are so many different choices.

Glennwillow · #8 08-29-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexfordbridge

Guitars are funny because I played the OM/PW and thought it was MUCH better than the OM. I found the OM to be boomy and the treble muted. Some people like this sound. That's why there are so many different choices.

I have played only 2 Santa Cruz guitars: my OM/PW and a 1934D (VERY EXPENSIVE!). Both of these guitars had what I would consider to be muted treble. I'm beginning to wonder if this "muted treble" is more of a Santa Cruz signature sound. (???) Though I have heard recordings of their Firefly and its treble is certainly not muted.

Also, whether the treble is muted or not depends a lot on how you attack the strings. I play fingerstyle, fairly lightly. But with a heavier attack, as say, the way Eric Skye plays (check out #2 here, http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...d.php?t=191985), there is all kinds of treble in the response.

I'm very glad I was able to find a way to really enjoy my new OM/PW by using Martin SP 80/20 bronze.

Regards, Glenn

sfden1 · #9 08-29-2010, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

I recently (in the last 3 weeks) acquired a new Santa Cruz OM/PW, and I am very much in agreement with comments already made. The OM/PW has quite a bit more bass. It is a simply appointed guitar, and I like that. But the darker sonic character of the guitar took some getting used to. I very much disliked the sound of the guitar with the factory installed Elixir nano PB light strings. I then tried D'Addario EJ16 (light PB), found some improvement, but was still unhappy. When I tried Martin SP/Marquis 80/20 bronze lights I was finally very happy. For me, the guitar needed some treble sparkle to lay over the darker contrasting overtones. Now it sounds very rich but with the right amount of trebles.

Your mileage, of course, should you try this, may vary....

- Glenn

Glenn: I like Curt Mangan PB medium lights (12-54) on mine a lot. I think I'll give the Martin 80/20's a try just to see the difference. I don't experiment with strings very much, so it's about time. Thanks for the suggestion. You might want to try the Mangan's and see if you like them.

Bltprf502 · #10 08-29-2010, 01:30 PM

The Mangan 12-54 80/20's are the best 80/20's I have tried yet. They don't last but for me none of them do. I would give them a shot over the Martin's.

roberts · #11 08-29-2010, 05:53 PM

A slightly different view: What you guys are describing as muted trebles I call fat. And very desirable

Glennwillow · #12 08-29-2010, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roberts

A slightly different view: What you guys are describing as muted trebles I call fat. And very desirable

Yes, I wouldn't disagree at all with your choice of words -- fat trebles.

Regards, Glenn

imwjl · #13 08-29-2010, 08:25 PM

I played both whenever I could for a few years and ultimately got the SCGC OMS (short scale modern OM). I would not describe the PW as more bass as much as less percussive or less distinction between notes. The PWs seem more like my Martin OM was and the modern OMs have some more crispness and mid range but not as intense as Goodalls or Collings. I think I went head over heals for the OMS because it has tone sort of between the two and that slightly easier feel of the shorter scale.

revive · #14 08-29-2010, 09:12 PM

To use Martin analogies...

OM = sounds like to Martin OM42 (lots of overtones, balanced)

OMPW = sounds like Martin OM21 on steroids (more sprightly, less overtones than OM, more bass)

riverworker · #15 08-30-2010, 09:09 PM

Quote:

When I tried Martin SP/Marquis 80/20 bronze lights I was finally very happy.

Quote:

I'm very glad I was able to find a way to really enjoy my new OM/PW by using Martin SP 80/20 bronze.

...pretty much my experience, too.