Rainsong: which are better, old or new models?
 

Not comparing Rainsong guitars to wood instruments, but
between old (say the 1990s) and newer ones, does anyone have
any playing experience? I know the company claims the construction
is different, and of course they claim the new techniques are better....

When I first started looking at these, I went to a store that had one of each body style in stock. I was most interested in a jumbo or a dread. Both of them were incredible instruments and made in the WA plant. The WS1000 that they had was NOS from the Hawaii plant. I played it quite a bit, too, even though I didn't think I would get that body style. It sounded a played great also, but there was something about it that I didn't like as much as the others.

When I finally ordered my Rainsong, it ended up being the WS1000 for a variety of reasons. But I am glad that it is from the WA plant. I really don't know if there really is a difference or not, but mine is fantastic! I did like the Maui girl that they used to put on them, but they haven't done that for quite a while. She is a cute logo, but not really appropriate on a guitar that I use to do chidren's programs.

Mark
I have since left a message and gotten a return call within 24 hours from a informed and patient cust serv rep. They seems to have removed the bracing in the new models, thus the top is more free to resonate, thus prob its a louder acoustic tone. seems like the newer classics are the way to go....

This post shouldnt be here... somebody move it to the General Discussion Section.

I had a 1999 WS1000. It was (and I'm sure still is) a remarkable guitar. Very, very clear tone. Very, very loud. Very, very easy to play. I got rid of it because I drifted back to the "wood" sound. The composite sound is an acquired taste. To me, it's not as warm as the wood sound. In most situatoins I think the composite sound is more clear and even than the best of wooden instruments, but I simply lean toward the "wood" sound. Rainsongs, in my view, are excellent guitars and worth the money. It all comes down to what each of us likes in a guitar. I want wood. Others may lean toward the composite sound. There's not a thing in the world wrong with either. If I should ever consider a composite guitar again, I will definitly look at another Rainsong.

So what are they actually made from, is it the same composite that you see on other composites. I have never had the pleasure of trying one out, so I don't know what they actually sound like, but I wouldnt mind trying.Ship

To my ears at least the Composite Acoustics guitars are more "woody" sounding than the Rainsongs, and I have A/B'd them several times at Elderly.

I had both Composite Acoustics and Rainsong guitars and I don't think that CAs are as balanced as Rainsong. If you play fingerstyle, you would definitely go with a Rainsong.

Which body types were you comparing? Were they both dreadnoughts?

The WS1000 is an auditorium size guitar.

I played some older ones....maybe 96-1997 from what I call. Back then, they were really expensive $2500-3000 for the time. I wasn't impressed with the tone. I honestly thought my $550 Gibson Gospel sounded better. Maybe it was just a bad guitar.

Then Rainsong made some changes and I was really impressed with newer models that came aound 1999 or so. They were far less expensive and sounded quite nice.

I recall reading that some early Rainsongs would develop 'blisters' on the surface if exposed to too much sunlight. There was some debate over whether that was a widespread problem, or a few isolated incidents.