Good vs Great Guitar

[Drubbing]

Originally Posted by rmyAddison

If you honestly can't hear the difference how sad for you, some folks can....

You and others apply reverse snobbery with this very response. I bought a decent cheaper guitar. Why should anyone feel sorry for me if either I can't tell a difference, or if I can, that don't think it's worth it.

Someone should feel sorry for me that I don't need to spend 10x more money to enjoy a guitar? For me, it's all about what I'm playing and how I'm playing it.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Drubbing

You and others apply reverse snobbery with this very response. I bought a decent cheaper guitar. Why should anyone feel sorry for me if either I can't tell a difference, or if I can, that don't think it's worth it.

Someone should feel sorry for me that I don't need to spend 10x more money to enjoy a guitar? For me, it's all about what I'm playing and how I'm playing it.

Of course you are right and great that you have a fine guitar.

Absolute statements can sound off. Folks accusing players who spend a lot of money for having their snoots up is just as off as someone being dismissed for not being able to hear things.

I have really enjoyed spending years learning about what works for me, going to shops and trying as many guitars as I can. Owning a bunch and living with them to see how my relationship with them evolves.

Learning how I define good vs. great, and then being able to identify the very, very few great (for me) guitars that I come across has been a really fun part of my time as a guitarist.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by ikravchik

…can't Olson guitars be reverse engineered and mass produced much cheaper?

Hi ik...

Reverse engineering is the dream of every company who knocks off Martins, Taylors, Gibsons, Olsons etc. Reverse engineering is far more complex than taking a set of pictures and measurements and gluing pieces of wood a certain thickness together into a guitar shape.

The companies who build guitars of equal or better quality than Martin guitars do not build inexpensive instruments. The best D-28 I ever played was a Huss & Dalton, and it cost nearly triple what a new D-28 would have cost, and it played and sounded like a D-28 on steroids (amazing guitar).

Three builders who were heavily influenced by James Olson and are making a living from it are Brian Applegate (who learned to build directly from Jim), Bill Wise (Charis guitars) and Kevin Ryan (Ryan guitars). Their guitars range from $8000 - $20,000 depending on what you order (and a new Olson is more than $12,500 in 2014).

At Healdsburg 2009 I sought out and played at least 8 Olson Clones by 'new' builders who had your stated goal in mind, and the most expensive of the lot was $3500. They all looked like James Olson could have built them, and not one of them is in the same class for tone, responsiveness, resonance. Their fit-n-finish was great. But it's the tone, responsiveness, resonance, and sustain that count. At Healdsburg 2013 I made the rounds and not one of those 8 builders were back displaying any guitars.

When my last commissioned guitar was built, the builder (Michael Bashkin) timed it so he would work on my guitar on my day off, and I had his permission to observe and film (he was building 6 guitars at the same time).

So over 7 months I watched my guitar grow from a stack of wood into a world class guitar, I asked hundreds of questions, had discussions, took hundreds of pictures, and discovered some things which deepened my understanding of how guitars are built.

One of the first things I learned is how much guitar lore there is about how our instruments are constructed. Another is I sure don't have what it takes to build guitars.

Other things I learned…

• World class guitars are a matter of meticulous work and thousands of building steps.
• There is no set of master guitar building plans - guitars are built differently by different builders…sometimes radically different.
• A manufacturer's goal is to build the next guitar as good as the last guitar (uniformity). A luthier's goal is to make his/her next guitar the best one they ever built.
• Wood is not consistent; cut, plane, glue-up & sand tops to a specification and results can be all over the place. Manufactured guitars cut the tops to a certain thickness and finish them. That's just the starting point for a luthier.
• Three sets of wood for tops, cut adjacent to each other from the same log; one can be more dense than the other two, one more flexible than the others, and one more stiff than the others. All can be made into great guitars, but that takes know how and additional work…all done by hand.
• The luthier community is friendly with one other and share how to build better guitars with each other. They sponsor conferences, workshops, schools, etc and are often good friends with each other - often they collaborate on projects.

I learned a ton of other things as well, and now understand why it's not as simple as reverse engineering a set of measurements into a world class instrument. If it were, we'd have easily accessible and inexpensive Stradivarius violins, and Olson/Martin/Gibson/Taylor guitars.

It is interesting to me is how many former employees of Martin/Gibson/Taylor who have become solo guitar builders build just as good an instrument (or better) as the company guitar, but the results are not clones.

[jaymarsch]

Excellent post, Larry. (#33) Thanks for taking the time. Interesting to read about your process with Michael Bashkin. Sounds like a great experience.

In reading this thread, my opinion at this moment is:
Since playing lots of guitars at many different price points and from many makers as well as factories over the years, all I want to say this morning is I hope that whatever instrument each of us has, I hope we all have some time to play today. Music is such a blessing and we are so fortunate to even be able to have the luxury of this discussion. There are far too many folks in the world too worried about where their next meal is coming from or where they'll sleep tonight. Just sayin'.

So with whatever guitar you love, regardless of where it came from or how much it cost - play, give thanks, and enjoy!

Best,
Jayne

[Oldguy64]

You can see by my sig that I don't own any so called snooty guitars.
I'd sure like to though!
Some people tell me I'm a good player.
I personally think that I do mediocre really well.

My personal philosophy is to buy the absolute best guitar you can afford.
It SHOULD be better than you are, and maybe better than you'll ever be.
It will ease your pursuit of the instrument greatly.
Nothing like a great sounding guitar with a superb action.
It will give your fingers wings, and will inspire you to learn more by encouraging experimentation and exploration.

While I can't afford an Olsen, Leach, or some other custom built guitar, you can bet I'd still like to have one.
You can't expect to buy a "Bentley" and pay for a "Ford".
Now you may be able to hold your own in a "Corvette" vs. "Ferrari" war.
But a Vette is still a $90,000 car, vs a $200,000 car.
That is the equivalent of putting a Tsylor or Martin against a great custom maker.

But the OP pretty much said a VW can be as good as a Bentley. (Ie Seagull vs Olsen)
That just ain't so.
They will both get you there. But you will feel quite differently about the journey related to the vehicle you took to get there.

[00-28]

Originally Posted by Oldguy64

But the OP pretty much said a VW can be as good as a Bentley. (Ie Seagull vs Olsen)
That just ain't so.
They will both get you there. But you will feel quite differently about the journey related to the vehicle you took to get there.

.....Mike

[Phelonious Ponk]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi ik...

Reverse engineering is the dream of every company who knocks off Martins, Taylors, Gibsons, Olsons etc. Reverse engineering is far more complex than taking a set of pictures and measurements and gluing pieces of wood a certain thickness together into a guitar shape.

The companies who build guitars of equal or better quality than Martin guitars do not build inexpensive instruments. The best D-28 I ever played was a Huss & Dalton, and it cost nearly triple what a new D-28 would have cost, and it played and sounded like a D-28 on steroids (amazing guitar).

Three builders who were heavily influenced by James Olson and are making a living from it are Brian Applegate (who learned to build directly from Jim), Bill Wise (Charis guitars) and Kevin Ryan (Ryan guitars). Their guitars range from $8000 - $20,000 depending on what you order (and a new Olson is more than $12,500 in 2014).

At Healdsburg 2009 I sought out and played at least 8 Olson Clones by 'new' builders who had your stated goal in mind, and the most expensive of the lot was $3500. They all looked like James Olson could have built them, and not one of them is in the same class for tone, responsiveness, resonance. Their fit-n-finish was great. But it's the tone, responsiveness, resonance, and sustain that count. At Healdsburg 2013 I made the rounds and not one of those 8 builders were back displaying any guitars.

When my last commissioned guitar was built, the builder (Michael Bashkin) timed it so he would work on my guitar on my day off, and I had his permission to observe and film (he was building 6 guitars at the same time).

So over 7 months I watched my guitar grow from a stack of wood into a world class guitar, I asked hundreds of questions, had discussions, took hundreds of pictures, and discovered some things which deepened my understanding of how guitars are built.

One of the first things I learned is how much guitar lore there is about how our instruments are constructed. Another is I sure don't have what it takes to build guitars.

Other things I learned…

• World class guitars are a matter of meticulous work and thousands of building steps.
• There is no set of master guitar building plans - guitars are built differently by different builders…sometimes radically different.
• A manufacturer's goal is to build the next guitar as good as the last guitar (uniformity). A luthier's goal is to make his/her next guitar the best one they ever built.
• Wood is not consistent; cut, plane, glue-up & sand tops to a specification and results can be all over the place. Manufactured guitars cut the tops to a certain thickness and finish them. That's just the starting point for a luthier.
• Three sets of wood for tops, cut adjacent to each other from the same log; one can be more dense than the other two, one more flexible than the others, and one more stiff than the others. All can be made into great guitars, but that takes know how and additional work…all done by hand.
  
• The luthier community is friendly with one other and share how to build better guitars with each other. They sponsor conferences, workshops, schools, etc and are often good friends with each other - often they collaborate on projects.

I learned a ton of other things as well, and now understand why it's not as simple as reverse engineering a set of measurements into a world class instrument. If it were, we'd have easily accessible and inexpensive Stradivarius violins, and Olson/Martin/Gibson/Taylor guitars.

It is interesting to me is how many former employees of Martin/Gibson/Taylor who have become solo guitar builders build just as good an instrument (or better) as the company guitar, but the results are not clones.

Good post, Larry, but the two points bolded above are the only points that have any significant impact on sound. The gap is not a chasm. It is crossed by quite a few lucky factory guitars. One of these days, I suspect technology will close the gap a lot further with the ability to measure the density of materials, match up a top with the appropriate braces, and thickness the top and carve the braces to a target flexibility. Programs and robots will do it. Will they be as good as hand made instruments? Probably not every time, but the odds will come up dramatically, and a much higher percentage of factory guitars will have the kind of volume and touch response a very talented individual can squeeze out of wood. Tone will, of course, always remain subjective. I'm not sure I could really even use an Olsen effectively. It doesn't fit my approach or target tone. I had a very nice Lowden O for a couple of years. As amazing as the thing was, I finally had to get the cash out of it and spend it on something that worked for me.

P

[mot]

Originally Posted by Bowie

I'll say this as respectfully as possible; there are thousands of people who can't hear the difference. But, for those of us who do, there are talented builders making fine guitars. They just don't come cheap.

If a person can hear the difference, then there has to be a way to objectively measure it. I think PPonk is right on target with the bias comments. The low end users to the high end users will have subjective bias so any subjective analyses are not very useful. Snooty or dismissive comments are not needed if we can get objective analyses.

So we need somebody to define a quality tone (like Larry and his Olson maybe) and then see how it's sonic signature is different from guitars of similar or different quality. This may not be a sound that everyone agrees is the best, but it doesn't matter. We can run a similar experiment with other 'best' sounding guitars.

On another note, again thanks PP, we are so close to having greatly improved if not absolute control over the materials used to put together sonic instruments. There is reason to expect a mass market guitar made in China or Mexico will have the exact same high quality sound and action of the best guitar you can imagine soon if not already here. (The bentley/VW argument is not appropriate here. It would work better in comparing a high end guitar to a mass produced uke)

Taguchi methods are filtering into every market including guitars. Custom $$$$ guitars are not going away but they are going to have stiffer competition from mass market $ guitars that are just as good in anyway that one can objectively measure.

I expect high end one off guitars will retain their resale value because of their uniqueness, but if you are interested in sound and playability you can get comparable quality at a fraction of the cost. This is a great age for guitars and any other area where technology can make the raw materials and manufacturing better.

[Rodger Knox]

Originally Posted by GuitarLight

A great guitar is likely one made in China or Indonesia which costs $300 to $500 and plays as well as a $3000 high and mighty guitar with a fancy name on the head stock. THAT's a great guitar! And there are thousands of them today available to anyone who doesn't have their snoot in the clouds.

They do exist, but not by the thousands. Factory guitars are made to specs, and every once in a while the specs are correct for the wood used. Since factory guitars are overbuilt to avoid warranty work, it's the worst wood they will use that makes the best factory guitars.

A hand builder starts with a better piece of wood than the worst a factory will use, so you would expect them to sound better.

[PinkLine]

I come down on both sides of this discussion. Over the past 20 years, I have played or owned Goodalls, Lowdens, Huss & Daltons, Gurians, Collings, Froggy Bottom, and other fine guitars. I recently sold a Huss & Dalton and used the proceeds to purchase three Bedells and an Alvarez Masterworks. I loved the Huss & Dalton (00SP), and marveled at its fine construction and materials. However, I'd make that trade again any day of the week, as the quality of these Chinese made guitars has made incredible strides in recent years, and I am certainly getting more enjoyment out of these four than I did from the one I sold.

So yes, the high end stuff is great, but if you haven't checked out the low-mid imports recently, you are missing some great instruments.

[frank4001]

Originally Posted by jaymarsch

Excellent post, Larry. (#33) Thanks for taking the time. Interesting to read about your process with Michael Bashkin. Sounds like a great experience.

In reading this thread, my opinion at this moment is:
Since playing lots of guitars at many different price points and from many makers as well as factories over the years, all I want to say this morning is I hope that whatever instrument each of us has, I hope we all have some time to play today. Music is such a blessing and we are so fortunate to even be able to have the luxury of this discussion. There are far too many folks in the world too worried about where their next meal is coming from or where they'll sleep tonight. Just sayin'.

So with whatever guitar you love, regardless of where it came from or how much it cost - play, give thanks, and enjoy!

Best,
Jayne

+1 for Larry's post and the sentiment....

[zmf]

What about horses for courses? If it's the great tone, it is often the case that you really get what you pay for. But much depends on what music you make, and i don't think the single-luthier great guitars are always the best.

Was playing all my guitars this morning, and was surprised once again that my cheapest guitar, a custom D-18V (OK-- not all that cheap), still has the best note separation high up the neck relative to those with arguably better tone and overall playability. For some music, the Martin, a flatpicker's guitar, stands me in good stead for my fingerpicking.

Not saying there aren't times when only the Lowden or Bourgeois will do, in fact more often than not, but the same goes for those cheap, mass-produced Martins and Taylors.

[islandguitar]

YES! Thanks Larry!!

[Alan Carruth]

PPonk wrote:
"The gap is not a chasm. It is crossed by quite a few lucky factory guitars. One of these days, I suspect technology will close the gap a lot further with the ability to measure the density of materials, match up a top with the appropriate braces, and thickness the top and carve the braces to a target flexibility"

I'm told that Taylor has already started doing that to some degree. The word is that they're measuring the density of the tops they get in, and using that as a way to determine the proper thickness. It's a start.

This can more or less work because soft woods all have the same basic structure. As a result they all follow the same rule (as closely as you'd expect natural materials could) relating Young's modulus along the grain to density. If you measure those things on a bunch of guitar top blanks you'll find that about 2/3 of them will fall within 10% plus or minus of the same line on a chart. Given the errors of measurement you can't get rid of, that's pretty good. The neat thing about this is that, since you're working 'to the piece' rather than 'to the species' or cosmetic factors, you're more likely to end up with consistent results.

The other third can be pretty widely scattered, of course. This could get you into trouble. Some tops are much less stiff then their density would indicate, and they would end up too thin, sometimes by a lot. Also, of course, there are those tops that are stiffer than their density would suggest they 'should' be. Those can make superior instruments, since you can work them thinner and lighter. In either case, the lack of a direct Young's modulus measurement is a drawback.

The problem is density is easy and quick to measure, but Young's modulus takes time. Man-hours are the most expensive input in a factory setting, and everything is done to minimize them. That's why you see such great fit and finish on even low-end factory instruments: it's the best way to avoid unnecessary lost time in assembly.

In the end, then, Taylor will still have to do what all guitar factories have done: over build a bit to avoid warranty issues. They may do less of that, and should end up with more consistent instruments if, indeed, they're measuring density as I was told. But their average instrument will still be a bit heavier than it could have been, sacrificing a bit of power and treble for structural reliability.

At any rate, all factories work to averages, and once in a while they get lucky. Since every instrument they make will be somebody's Holy Grail all they have to do is find that person and they have a happy customer. Most hand makers are trying to meet a defined standard in sound; wrapping a box around it. It's a lot like catching smoke in a bottle. I'm not the only maker to produce something that everybody liked EXCEPT the guy who ordered it. Sure, you can sell it to somebody in the end, but for a luthier that's a failure.

Finally, I have to say that we can pretty reliably measure the difference between a 'poor' guitar and a 'good' one. What we don't have is a way to tell a 'very good' one from a 'great' one. Is 'great' just 'more good', or is it something else entirely? Depending on which it is the whole approach you take to get there will be different.

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by mot

If a person can hear the difference, then there has to be a way to objectively measure it. I think PPonk is right on target with the bias comments. The low end users to the high end users will have subjective bias so any subjective analyses are not very useful. Snooty or dismissive comments are not needed if we can get objective analyses.

So we need somebody to define a quality tone (like Larry and his Olson maybe) and then see how it's sonic signature is different from guitars of similar or different quality. This may not be a sound that everyone agrees is the best, but it doesn't matter. We can run a similar experiment with other 'best' sounding guitars.

On another note, again thanks PP, we are so close to having greatly improved if not absolute control over the materials used to put together sonic instruments. There is reason to expect a mass market guitar made in China or Mexico will have the exact same high quality sound and action of the best guitar you can imagine soon if not already here. (The bentley/VW argument is not appropriate here. It would work better in comparing a high end guitar to a mass produced uke)

Taguchi methods are filtering into every market including guitars. Custom $$$$ guitars are not going away but they are going to have stiffer competition from mass market $ guitars that are just as good in anyway that one can objectively measure.

I expect high end one off guitars will retain their resale value because of their uniqueness, but if you are interested in sound and playability you can get comparable quality at a fraction of the cost. This is a great age for guitars and any other area where technology can make the raw materials and manufacturing better.

No, that's absolutely incorrect. I've worked in the biz long enough to know that you can't quantifiably measure what pleases or displeases someone about auditory qualities. Our science hasn't gotten far enough and likely never will since pleasure and preference are the antithesis of objective measurement. It's completely up to the user to decide. We see enough common sentiment among guitarists about what quality is or isn't that we can create norms and subjective measurements. It's fine to stray from the crowd and buck popular opinion but this idea that we must abandon shared sensibilities and norms because we cannot objectively prove why we like something is, with all respects, nonsense.