#16
|
|||
|
|||
The McPherson 4.5 or 5.0 would be a better comparison to a Martin. The end pin depth really affects the acoustic sound of the guitar. I personally don't care much for the 3.5 models and I prefer the 4.5 or 5.0 models over the 4.0 and 3.5 on a whole.
Don't get me wrong I love Martin guitars but McPhersons can be quite great to play and hear!! |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
While McPherson's don't have adjustable truss rods, they do come with 3 saddles to accommodate playing styles (low, medium and high action).
I have played a few and had owned a Redwood and Macassar 4.0 before and it was a fine guitar. However for me, it excelled for many different songs I play, but for others, it was too piano-like. I prefer more versatility. The Mc has too much sustain for certain applications. To me, McPherson is the epidemy of the "Modern Guitar", while Martins are the epidemy of the "Traditional Guitar". Two completely different species. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
You might find this sounds a bit more complimentary. Preapred by a forum member.
https://youtu.be/0v3qV72u7BE https://youtu.be/LtA7qLieRHQ
__________________
"Lift your head and smile at trouble. You'll find happiness someday." |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Would add that when someone starts looking at guitars in this price point they are often looking for different and a Mcpherson is wildly different from a D-28. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
They both sounded really great in the video, but listening to a video is a vastly different experience than playing or listening live, so I wouldn't want to cast my vote either way on what I just heard. I'd have a hard time justifying paying several times the cost of the D-28 on a guitar that I didn't like the looks of and would give me a back ache.
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not knocking the Mcpherson - - but basically their more a players guitar
than they are a audience guitar - a specialty instrument for a particular purpose which is a good one -
__________________
--------------------------------- Wood things with Strings ! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Better bottom end on the Martin, better mids on the McPherson.
The Martin sounds like a Martin, which is a sound I particularly like with dreads. The McPherson is, for lack of a better term, more modern sounding. They're both fine sounding guitars. I wouldn't buy either one based on this video, but it was interesting.
__________________
Keith Martin 000-42 Marquis Taylor Classical Alvarez 12 String Gibson ES345s Fender P-Bass Gibson tenor banjo |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I haven't played a wood McPherson, but I wouldn't have any interest in a 12 lb guitar. Not electric and definitely not acoustic. I don't care how good it sounds.
Now the carbon fiber model... I played one of the Michael Kelly branded models when they were switching over the branding. It was the best sounding carbon fiber guitar I've ever played. I passed because it was very heavy compared to my rainsong and now my Emerald and Rainsong shorty. But at 5 1/2 pounds, I'm still thinking about the sound of the carbon fiber. If I come across a used one I might jump. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
They have never "looked" heavy to me. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Martin versus McPherson
Quote:
McPherson wood guitars are also 5.5 to 6 lbs. I presume someone did a conversion from Kilo to Lbs the wrong way. I don’t think they make any 12 lb guitars. The wooden ones are more impressive than the carbon and I’m really enjoying the carbon.
__________________
"Lift your head and smile at trouble. You'll find happiness someday." |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
I believe others have answered the concerns of the carbon fiber truss rod never needing adjustment (the inherent strength/stability of carbon fiber) and the cantilevered neck not being in contact with the top therefore also not contributing to movement. I don t want to claim a vast knowledge on the product line but never pass up a chance to stop in at “The Acoustic Shoppe” in Springfield MO where I purchased my LE carbon fiber Touring. The wooden guitars are like no other that I have ever encountered. The workmanship is impeccable that makes you feel like you’re in a Strativarious world. The sound is even more impressive with the one twelve string I played even better. I would not profess to have great hearing at 60 years old, but the new, never heard/picked up on harmonics make my senses go into overdrive! The differences in body thickness (4.0,4.5,5.0) does make a difference in sound. McPherson also has an unbelievable selection of common and exotic woods which contributes to a difficult comparison to any other guitar. I can t imagine a better sounding instrument.
The only drawback I can see is the price, they are truly handmade in limited numbers so they are not for the faint of heart. But nice future GAS!
__________________
Dickey Clapton |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
It’s not really an apples to apples comparison.
As others have mentioned, the 4.5 would have been a more direct comparison. Also the tops on both are different. Engelmann has a tendency to be more suited for fingerstyle than strumming. I have both Martin and McPherson. Both do work in most environments but for solo pieces the McPherson is the standout. The Martins are better for everyday in the band mix for my use. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
At one time, I had a wood McPherson 3.5 XP. The "XP" meant that the sound hole was a bit larger than what they consider standard. The guitar had quilted maple back and sides, and a spruce top. It was very good for playing jazz styling. It also worked well for open tunings because it didn't get muddy as you tuned the strings down. It amplified very well, and I was playing out a fair amount at the time.
The only problem I had with it was that it was too large for me to comfortably play. Sometime later, McPherson introduced there Camrielle series, whcih has a smaller body. I never got one of those, but did sell my original McPherson. Later, McPherson introduced the Michael Kelly carbon fiber guitars. I never took to those, but when McPherson introduced their own, after working with Ellis Seal, who developed the CA Guitars such as the Cargo, and put their own name on these, I bought first the Touring and then later the Sable. The Sable is the same size as the Camrielle and is therefore more comfortable for me to play. The things about McPherson wood instruments are the sustain and the impeccable build quality. McPherson seems to attend to the smallest of details that many others seem to fudge a bit. The same care for quality seems to go into their carbon fiber guitars. To me, McPherson is a very good guitar. Whether it is worth the money is, as with any guitar, a decision the buyer must make. Tony
__________________
“The guitar is a wonderful thing which is understood by few.” — Franz Schubert "Alexa, where's my stuff?" - Anxiously waiting... |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
To my ears the McPherson sounded amazing, the Martin muddy. But I was having a hard time finding the same passage on each guitar. And my headphones are Bose-biased. And videos are just videos - nothing close to actually playing it yourself.
The McPherson does has a lot of sustain as mentioned previously - makes me wonder if that could be tailored (not Taylored) using baffles. Adjustable Acoustic Sustain (AAS). Would be an interesting option for them to offer, in addition to multiple saddles. |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And I have always considered myself a "Martin Guy" because their sound is just pretty consistently the "sound in my head" when I think of what an acoustic guitar should sound like. Even after hearing the clips...I'd still pick the Martin. But if McPherson wants to send me one of their guitars as part of an endorsement...I'll change my mind and pick the McPherson. |