High End builders compared to the big three mass builders

[The Bard Rocks]

I keep hearing that guitars are just tools. Well, maybe so for some folks. No sense in disputing that. But consider: I enjoy looking at my guitars. But I don't look at my drill or saws, even when they are new. I enjoy hearing the sounds guitars can produce and I spend time experimenting with sound (as opposed to playing - I'm not talking songs or tunes now). But I never listen to my wrenches or hammers.

To at least some of us, guitars are not just tools; they are more than that.

[jp2558]

Originally Posted by The Bard Rocks

Many will differ with me on this, but I find, tonally, the differences between individual guitars are greater than the difference between makers. Meaning, I draw my conclusions based on the particular instrument, not upon the manufacturer.

I take it a step further. Base it on the player, not the instrument, not the manufacturer. Hendrix with a Hagstrom would still be Hendrix.

[usb_chord]

Generally speaking, if you like the sound of Martins, there's a fair chance you'll also enjoy Bourgeois, Santa Cruz and Huss and Dalton guitars - all of which favor the Pre-War Martin voicing style. Generous bass response, bright sparkly highs and some attempt at a dry transparent mid-range.

Collings is a little more of an outlier. Those guitars (even the Traditional series) can come off a little more on the bright and tight side of things. They're kinda like a high-end performance car with sport suspension. Quick responding, precise, nimble, articulate across the board. The fact that they can have such a big sound while still very much maintaining that great note separation is a defining characteristic, to my ear.

Many people say that Goodalls sound like Taylors, and I used to believe this, too. Now I'm not so sure. They're certainly on the modern side of the fence - lots of overtones, not much of a fundamental, especially for those most comfortable with traditional styled voicings. I actually feel that Taylors are a little more versatile than Goodalls, which don't exhibit so much lushness.

Martin vs. Gibson. Martins generally have more overtones and a bias towards the metallic. They generally have a wide "sound stage" (to borrow an audiophile term) and they almost always have great sustain. Gibson is one of the few makers to have figured out how to make a new steel string guitar sound "woody", regardless of wood combination. They almost always have exceptional clarity and a very prominent mid-range. The Gibsons that have a large bass presence almost never have to such a degree that it overwhelms the other frequencies.

The handbuilt world is a little more complicated, since they're afforded much more flexibility over the voicing of each individual instrument. The big manufacturers can do this too (i.e. the Martin Authentics sound V E R Y ! different from standard production models they offer) but there's much less serial number-specific considerations made.

I dunno, just my rambling.

[Rmz76]

Originally Posted by The Bard Rocks

I keep hearing that guitars are just tools. Well, maybe so for some folks. No sense in disputing that. But consider: I enjoy looking at my guitars. But I don't look at my drill or saws, even when they are new. I enjoy hearing the sounds guitars can produce and I spend time experimenting with sound (as opposed to playing - I'm not talking songs or tunes now). But I never listen to my wrenches or hammers.

To at least some of us, guitars are not just tools; they are more than that.

I don't think they are "just tools" but unless your only intent is to collect and display then the guitar has a function to help you make music. At that point it is a tool even if it's not "just a tool".

[Ricky Nelson]

Nice post USB
Thanks
RNF

[Monsoon1]

To me it's simple. People will pay into the millions for Ferrari beauty, even when a far cheaper car might be faster.
Same with guitars. You might find the rare cheap gem that sounds great, but it will never be a McKnight guitar, a Manzer or even a prewar Martin.

[jrb715]

Originally Posted by usb_chord

Generally speaking, if you like the sound of Martins, there's a fair chance you'll also enjoy Bourgeois, Santa Cruz and Huss and Dalton guitars - all of which favor the Pre-War Martin voicing style. Generous bass response, bright sparkly highs and some attempt at a dry transparent mid-range.

Collings is a little more of an outlier. Those guitars (even the Traditional series) can come off a little more on the bright and tight side of things. They're kinda like a high-end performance car with sport suspension. Quick responding, precise, nimble, articulate across the board. The fact that they can have such a big sound while still very much maintaining that great note separation is a defining characteristic, to my ear.

Many people say that Goodalls sound like Taylors, and I used to believe this, too. Now I'm not so sure. They're certainly on the modern side of the fence - lots of overtones, not much of a fundamental, especially for those most comfortable with traditional styled voicings. I actually feel that Taylors are a little more versatile than Goodalls, which don't exhibit so much lushness.

Martin vs. Gibson. Martins generally have more overtones and a bias towards the metallic. They generally have a wide "sound stage" (to borrow an audiophile term) and they almost always have great sustain. Gibson is one of the few makers to have figured out how to make a new steel string guitar sound "woody", regardless of wood combination. They almost always have exceptional clarity and a very prominent mid-range. The Gibsons that have a large bass presence almost never have to such a degree that it overwhelms the other frequencies.

The handbuilt world is a little more complicated, since they're afforded much more flexibility over the voicing of each individual instrument. The big manufacturers can do this too (i.e. the Martin Authentics sound V E R Y ! different from standard production models they offer) but there's much less serial number-specific considerations made.

I dunno, just my rambling.

For rambling, this is a pretty succinct, if of course partial, overview: at least as how I hear the guitars in question. (I thought I was the only one who heard most Martins, including my own, having a "bias toward the metallic.")

[Mr. Jelly]

One thing that jumps out at me from threads like this is that most people don't have a clue of what they are listening to when it comes to evaluating an acoustic guitar. Often they make it into some type of philosophical, psychological rant.

[Steadfastly]

Originally Posted by The Bard Rocks

Many will differ with me on this, but I find, tonally, the differences between individual guitars are greater than the difference between makers. Meaning, I draw my conclusions based on the particular instrument, not upon the manufacturer.

This second post nails it. No more posts are required.

[devellis]

Truth is, we should just play what we like and can afford. People's tastes, budgets, hearing, playing styles, concern for visual aesthetics, hand sizes, tone discernment, and histories of exposure to various guitars all differ. The net result of all of those factors translates into preferences. For some people, their preferences are razor thin while for others they're much broader.

To assume that one's own preferences are universal is myopic at best. People who like different guitars than I do aren't stupid, tone-deaf, fool-hardy, wasteful, cheap, or any other class of distasteful individual. They're just not me and they have their own tastes and values. Fortunately, we live at a time when the choices before us are numerous.

I could certainly tell you what I think about the matter at hand and I've given my opinions before. But really, it all comes down to what each of us prefers. I've played inexpensive guitars that I found delightful and really expensive ones that I thought were pretty much useless. I've also played inexpensive guitars that were useless and expensive ones that were delightful. And I'm not sure that another player would necessarily agree with my judgments in any of those cases. They don't have to. If we can find the instruments that work for us and bring us joy, then nothing else really matters.

[John K]

Originally Posted by H165

Good question. Brief background: I've been a pro repairman. I am now an amateur builder. I've owned about 250 acoustic flat top guitars, 150 of those pre-1970 Martins, 30 post-1969 Martins. The rest ranging through Taylor, Ovation, Guild, Gibson, early Stahl, Prarie State, Washburn, etc. I like, and own, boutique guitars. But I don't own them because I think they are better; just different, and therefore interesting to me. I find myself over the decades becoming more and more of a Martin fan.

In the '60s, Martin made the only six string flat top guitar that sounded good to me. The Gibsons of that era sounded like furniture. The Guilds were trying to be Martins. I was not into ladder braced guitars back then, so the entire list of those options went right by me other than repairs that came across the bench.

In the '70s, Taylor appeared out of the rough beginnings of the American Dream shop. A friend of mine, Greg Deering, worked in AD, so I visited a few times. It seemed to me AD was trying to enter the market with Martin clones. Along came the two guys who transformed that attempt into Taylor guitars, and we got a new player in the market place. Taylor quickly improved as the CNC-dominated QC king of guitar making. I visited a few times to see what gave Taylors the brighter/bassless (to me more harsh) tone which became their hallmark in the 80s and 90s.

When Taylor began to grab part of the marketplace, Martin payed attention. Chris has stated in interviews that Taylor motivated him to look at production processes and initiate innovations along the lines of Taylor. The 16 series appeared, and I can hear the Taylor influence in the Martin 16s.

Alongside the above developments came the subject of this thread - a few "boutique" makers and Martin modifiers. Starting with Ren Ferguson, Mattingly, Drumheller, Givens, Norwood, Franklin a bit later, even Mike Longworth at the Martin factory, people were starting to look at old guitars and trying to duplicate the construction of the great ones.

Then, the economy really took off. High level guitar repairmen and specialized woodworkers began to see that there might be a market for high quality small-production guitars custom made to certain customer-generated or historically proven specifications. The list got big. Collings, Santa Cruz, Olson, to name a few of many. Eric Schoenberg began asking > Can anyone make me a decent, or at least historically correct, OM?.

Martin was again paying attention. Small makers were all entering the market with Martin style construction using early Martin specs, with quality upgraded to nitpicking standards and individually tweaked to produce great results. They were basically outbuilding Martin, using Martin specs and making individual innovations improving quality and sound, and taking a bite of Martin's market.

Martin responded by saying "hey..good idea". Thus we have the many attempts at restoring the early Martin specs and quality to the Martin production options. The Schoenberg collaboration, the GE, the VS, the MARQUIS, the LE, the Signature models, etc. This all culminated in the A line, which I think equals or outperforms, in sound and playability, every other maker today.

.....How's that for too much information.....

Agree on all, except my 1965 J45 sounds anything like furniture...

[jpbrooks]

Originally Posted by usb_chord

Generally speaking, if you like the sound of Martins, there's a fair chance you'll also enjoy Bourgeois, Santa Cruz and Huss and Dalton guitars - all of which favor the Pre-War Martin voicing style. Generous bass response, bright sparkly highs and some attempt at a dry transparent mid-range.

Collings is a little more of an outlier. Those guitars (even the Traditional series) can come off a little more on the bright and tight side of things. They're kinda like a high-end performance car with sport suspension. Quick responding, precise, nimble, articulate across the board. The fact that they can have such a big sound while still very much maintaining that great note separation is a defining characteristic, to my ear.

Many people say that Goodalls sound like Taylors, and I used to believe this, too. Now I'm not so sure. They're certainly on the modern side of the fence - lots of overtones, not much of a fundamental, especially for those most comfortable with traditional styled voicings. I actually feel that Taylors are a little more versatile than Goodalls, which don't exhibit so much lushness.

Martin vs. Gibson. Martins generally have more overtones and a bias towards the metallic. They generally have a wide "sound stage" (to borrow an audiophile term) and they almost always have great sustain. Gibson is one of the few makers to have figured out how to make a new steel string guitar sound "woody", regardless of wood combination. They almost always have exceptional clarity and a very prominent mid-range. The Gibsons that have a large bass presence almost never have to such a degree that it overwhelms the other frequencies.

The handbuilt world is a little more complicated, since they're afforded much more flexibility over the voicing of each individual instrument. The big manufacturers can do this too (i.e. the Martin Authentics sound V E R Y ! different from standard production models they offer) but there's much less serial number-specific considerations made.

I dunno, just my rambling.

Thanks that is what I was looking for, realize its just your opinion, but that's what is fun about this forum.

[jpbrooks]

I am the OP and am not in the market to buy a guitar. This wasn't about research for a purchase, just discussion to ease my curiosity about some of the well known high end boutique builder that I have not had the joy of playing.