Peavey to Release Composite Acoustics at NAMM
 

I just spoke to one of the technicians at Peavey, and they are set to release the CA guitars at NAMM. He said that Peavey did find defects in the original guitars, which they corrected:

1. Neck pitch
2. problem with saddle

He said he does not expect them to raise the prices on these and that they are building them now. Guitar Center, of course, will stock them.

I think this is good news. We'll have to see how well they are put together when they ship.

I am encouraged. It would be a real shame to see the product disappear.

Cool, Lisa!

Thanks, Glenn

Yeah, well, I guess someone there understands something about guitars.

Good deal.

I'll look forward to seeing the reality of these corrections on the new Cargo...

...although adding a truss rod would have been nice...but I can be patient...not long to wait, now.

So is Peavey saying all Composite Acoustics guitars had these two defects? I'm somewhat skeptical given the raving reviews for the original Composite Acoustics guitars and the fan base. Such remarks seem to be too general to apply to "all" of the original CA guitars that were manufactured. Such broad statements potentially could be a marketing strategy as a way attempt to differentiate the new CA guitars from the original ones.

I'd be interested to hear from any CA owners whether you discovered "defects" with the neck pitch of your CA guitar or saddle.

Well put Steve.

...............

Too much fun here for me.

...and perhaps Lisa will step in to clarify or expand upon her brief, non-directed comments.


Either the Cargo will be improved, or not.

I wonder if that statement was aimed at the Cargo specifically, or all of their guitars. I know my six year old Legacy has no problems with neck pitch or its saddle. (Of course, this guitar was from the first incarnation of the factory, before they reorganized and brought out the Cargo.)

I'm a CA owner who will testify that of the many instruments I looked at, only a couple had reasonable neck angle/saddle height geometry. I enjoyed mine so much that I looked avidly for a second one and was unable to find the model I preferred with reasonable geometry.

Fran

That, of course, was my experience. Putting medium gauge strings on the Cargo then only made things worse.

I also had a few retail shops on the lookout for any Cargo instruments that had a reasonable chance (IMO) of a proper set-up...and this proved pretty much futile.

My experience.

Of course, the CA folks gave me their own production specs for the Cargo, and these were basically unacceptable to me. Their main production manager (Steve Murray) came from GM (from what I understand), and not the guitar industry...so this did not surprise me.

if they take care of these problems I would still like to see a truss rod. One of the reasons I sold my CA and went back to a Taylor.

CA must have given all the good ones to Tarpman cause my Legacy from there was perfect. Peavey probably would like to sell some guitars and no reason not to promote their version. My gut is my Tobacco burst Legacy will still be one of my teasures.
Steve

I've owned quite a few CA's, (6 or 7) and noticed the same thing. I had to send 3 of them back for this issue. (two Cargos and one GXi) The earlier ones were spot on, but I think they had problems with slight changes in tolerances as production went on, and it just got progressively worse over the following years.

Don't shoot the messenger! I am only repeating verbatim what the tech told me! He told me these were issues that Peavey discovered and wanted to correct before they realeased it. They seem to be a stand up company who want to listen to customers and put a good product out there. He said if anyone has any input in regards to any changes, like a longer scale or putting a truss rod in, to definitely email them, as the development team listens and will respond.

I am really sorry folks that my comments were takens as a "general" statement. I only posted exactly what the tech told me.:confused:

No problems, Lisa...I was just wondering if the tech you spoke with was referring to Cargo, or other guitars as well. My only experience with the CA product was in the Cargo world.

Either way, I find it pretty amusing that "defenders of the flame" for the Cargo would try to spin this as a marketing ploy.

The Cargo sold well. Some folks did not find a problem with it's geometry and other issues that we have covered in great detail elsewhere on the AGF. Others of us found significant, repetitive problems...with guitar after guitar after guitar.

In my case, this was verified by retailers both of whom acknowledged the problem, and were on the lookout for me if any Cargos came in outside of the usual specs that they were being delivered with.

Those of us that found these problems (which rendered those guitars unacceptable to us) hope they are addressed. I too would hold out some hope for a truss rod, but i won't hold my breath.

If the neck angle and neck/body joint issues are fully corrected then I too might eventually become a Cargo owner.

Please try to not hold this against me...

:cool:

it was a rampant problem with the ones i saw and owned. they would duck it any way possible when challenged at customer service. was very disenchanted with them. unsurprised when they went under.

Larry,

Your input is hugely valuable. And again, those of you that are interested in improving the Composite Acoustic products, let your voice be heard! The tech told me that the owner is a great guy, understands the consumer, and even though the travel guitar is a small market, they want to make it right.

So email peavey at: [email protected]

Be part of the change!

You played a few CA's. Did you find them unplayable or otherwise in need of change?

I own a Cargo RT with electronics and previously had a Cargo RT with no electronics. I've had no issues with either guitar.

Having factory-made guitars leave the factory with noticeable intonation problems is not unique to CA - the first Tacoma Papooses that hit the market had the saddle slot too far forward, with the intonation problems you'd expect, and even the worthiest of guitar companies, C.F. Martin & Co., made some guitars with bridge slots that got routed in the wrong spot during the early 1970's.

The difference is that Tacoma Guitars and Martin Guitars corrected the problem once they were made aware of it, and that doesn't appear to be the case with the Composite Acoustic company.

It might well have been that, as a company, CA wasn't profitable yet, and that the cost of correcting the problem would have been more expensive to fix than they could afford. I've got no idea of exactly what the tooling costs would be to make major changes in a carbon fiber instrument design, but what experience I do have with guitar factories indicates that any tooling change at a commercial production level is extremely expensive.

And maybe when the material being used is carbon fiber rather than wood, the tooling costs are that much more expensive still...

So to me it seems likely that the company was unresponsive to making the needed changes because they were having enough trouble as it was making payroll and keeping the power turned on...

Just a guess, but an educated guess.


Wade Hampton Miller

This is the first I've ever heard of intonation problems with CA. Has it been your experience that they've suffered from such a problem?

When the neck geometry and saddle placement are off, it affects the intonation as well as the playability. There have been enough posts by enough well-regarded players in this thread alone to give credence to the complaints.

The main point I'm trying to get across is that making changes to the tooling in a factory setting is extremely expensive. We already know that CA didn't make it as a profitable business, since they shut down their factory and went dark. So it's my reasoned guess that, even though they were made aware of the problems with these instruments by knowledgeable folks like Larry Pattis and others, the company lacked the financial resources to correct them.

Just a guess, but it does make sense given the circumstances.


Wade Hampton Miller

Mr Pattis has been lobbying long and hard for very specific features. AFAIK, intonation wasn't the issue he was concerned about -- it was adjustability.

The infamous issue with CA is that the saddle can only be lowered so far. Players seeking a low action may have to bring the saddle down lower than they feel comfortable with.

Personally, I found the neck angle fine. I found the string height from the top fine. I found the tone and playability fine. I found the intonation fine. But, I do think their bridge design can cause the infamous low-saddle issue if one wants low action.

It'll be interesting to see what they actually change in production.

Okay, Übernoober, I'm guilty of a superficial reading of the posts in this thread.

My main points stand: sometimes guitars leave guitar factories with some major problems, and correcting those problems in a production setting can be quite expensive. There's really no disputing either of those assertions.

Now, the conclusion I've drawn - that CA was having financial difficulties and couldn't afford to correct the problems that people besides Larry Pattis have found - is speculative. As I already stated in both of my posts in this thread before, it's a guess, but an educated guess.

Personally, I think it's likely. But we're probably never going to find out for certain one way or the other.

Hope that makes more sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

I appreciate your insights, Wade. I do like the guitars, and I find such speculation to be less than helpful to current owners.

FWIW, there have been many threads on this issue, and it was sometimes heated. From my understanding, it would have been fairly easy to change the neck angle if CA wanted to. Now that someone else is making the calls, it'll be interesting to see what changes.

I think the issues Larry was having was with the Cargo which really was their least expensive travel guitar. I have one of their top of the line Legacies and the neck angle was perfect, I have lowered the action on the saddle to 4/64's on the Low E and still had 1/8 inch on the saddle. Neck relief was .007. I just don't think they had issues with all their guitars. But I can only judge by what I have played.
Steve

Uh oh. I fear this may end up becoming another one of those threads. ;)

I have both an OX and a Cargo. I like a very low action for fingerstyle. I'd say that I had to bring my saddle down for both models a bit lower than I would have to for wood guitars.

One could argue that it's less of an issue with the Cargo since the scale is so short. It's easy to tolerate a slightly higher action if that's the way you want to leave it.

One could also argue that traditional saddle-height metrics don't necessarily apply to carbon fiber tops.

Anyway, on with the speculation!

That was close to my experience. I have purchased 3 CAs, but sent the first two back due to too low a neck angle. The third was a keeper - but that's a pretty terrible defect rate!

Of course there have been many reports here about how terrible the neck angle can be on brand new Martins and Taylors too. I just would have hoped that building a guitar with completely synthetic raw materials would lead to a more reproducible product. Clearly the CA manufacturing process was not exactly Six Sigma.

Ah, here we go!

The OP's rumor implies that Peavey is making design changes, not QA changes. So current owners apparently suffer with both poor quality and poor designs.

Hmm, I'm starting to think I should throw away my pre-Peavey CA, and I haven't even seen the new ones yet. :)

Mr Pattis has experience only with CA's cheapest and most purpose built instrument yet he is the most vocal critic of CA on this forum. Where can I read about issues on full size CA's by reputable people?