Hypothetical choice Eastman/Martin

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by Sonics

The correct answer is: The one that sounds best. However the reality is most people listen with their eyes. You can also throw in the 'loyalty' factor. Folk will defend their brand to the death despite being shown overwhelming contrary 'data'.

So predictably, in this 'hypothetical, I'm going with the Martin...

I do agree with you on the "loyalty factor".

I would say however that they are many biases based on lots of different elements. Some of these are legit and some are based on heresay and false assumptions both positive and negative. Others are based on personal experience.

I'm curious as to what "overwhelming contrary data" you are referring to.
Most of what is posted here isn't based on concrete data. It's based on opinions, biases and both experience and inexperience. Honestly, I haven't ever seen any concrete data. If there is some, I would love to see it.
BTW, as you can see in my signature, I own three brands including the two being discussed. Obviously, I don't fit your assertion of someone defending "their brand."

[Sonics]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

I do agree with you on the "loyalty factor".

I would say however that they are many biases based on lots of different elements. Some of these are legit and some are based on heresay and false assumptions both positive and negative. Others are based on personal experience.

I'm curious as to what "overwhelming contrary data" you are referring to.
Most of what is posted here isn't based on concrete data. It's based on opinions, biases and both experience and inexperience. Honestly, I haven't ever seen any concrete data. If there is some, I would love to see it.
BTW, as you can see in my signature, I own three brands including the two being discussed. Obviously, I don't fit your assertion of someone defending "their brand."

"Overwhelming contrary data" refers to consensus of opinion. Blind test have been performed both here and Youtube on acoustic guitars and electric guitar amps and people have been invited to express an opinion. The infamous Scott Grove acoustic blind test immediately comes to mind. The $150 silvertone plywood beater was the clear winner over a Martin, a $6500 Taylor and some other expensive guitars. Yet people REFUSED to accept the results citing the testing methodology, the microphone, the strings...and even the guitar selection. They knew, on that test, the beater had the best tone, but was looking to find some excuse to dismiss it.

The Anderton's valve amp vs Solid State was another blind test where the SS amp won. Same story, folk came up with excuses.

[leew3]

Originally Posted by Sonics

"Overwhelming contrary data" refers to consensus of opinion. Blind test have been performed both here and Youtube on acoustic guitars and electric guitar amps and people have been invited to express an opinion. The infamous Scott Grove acoustic blind test immediately comes to mind. The $150 silvertone plywood beater was the clear winner over a Martin, a $6500 Taylor and some other expensive guitars. Yet people REFUSED to accept the results citing the testing methodology, the microphone, the strings...and even the guitar selection. They knew, on that test, the beater had the best tone, but was looking to find some excuse to dismiss it.

The Anderton's valve amp vs Solid State was another blind test where the SS amp won. Same story, folk came up with excuses.

so we're done here?

[vindibona1]

Originally Posted by DanleyJ

Hypothetical is by definition a "what if" scenario. Never implied realistic. I was just trying to eliminate the money issue with guitars and trying to get folks to see this from a different perspective. But your heart of the question does fit into the scenario.

New or used, resale does not enter into my original post as I was just trying to find out why you would prefer one over the other. No other considerations were mentioned.

Then more directly... The beautiful thing about capitalism is that people can charge what they can get. And while name brand and marketing come into play, if Eastman guitars were generally on the same level as Martin or Taylor, I would think they would be priced higher in general.

But again, as musicians, the sound that comes out of the instrument is what counts.

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by Sonics

"Overwhelming contrary data" refers to consensus of opinion. Blind test have been performed both here and Youtube on acoustic guitars and electric guitar amps and people have been invited to express an opinion. The infamous Scott Grove acoustic blind test immediately comes to mind. The $150 silvertone plywood beater was the clear winner over a Martin, a $6500 Taylor and some other expensive guitars. Yet people REFUSED to accept the results citing the testing methodology, the microphone, the strings...and even the guitar selection. They knew, on that test, the beater had the best tone, but was looking to find some excuse to dismiss it.

The Anderton's valve amp vs Solid State was another blind test where the SS amp won. Same story, folk came up with excuses.

I had never seen that video so I went and checked it out and made notes and honestly not sure why anyone would have picked the silvertone. You could hear the intonation issues of a cheap guitar plain as day. The first one which was the high end taylor I thought sounded the best. I guess people just hear different things.

[zoopeda]

Originally Posted by Sonics

"Overwhelming contrary data" refers to consensus of opinion. Blind test have been performed both here and Youtube on acoustic guitars and electric guitar amps and people have been invited to express an opinion. The infamous Scott Grove acoustic blind test immediately comes to mind. The $150 silvertone plywood beater was the clear winner over a Martin, a $6500 Taylor and some other expensive guitars. Yet people REFUSED to accept the results citing the testing methodology, the microphone, the strings...and even the guitar selection. They knew, on that test, the beater had the best tone, but was looking to find some excuse to dismiss it.

The Anderton's valve amp vs Solid State was another blind test where the SS amp won. Same story, folk came up with excuses.

Not to mention, the garbage sound quality on YouTube. The notion that a guitar sounds on YouTube as it does in person is ludicrous. It’s also the epitome of Wishful Thinking for an Internet-obsessed world that evaluates and buys guitars online.

When I sit in a room with a bunch of guitars, I like to think I can often hear some differences.

[vintage40s]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

When you shake the trees of the Internet, you’ll find all kinds of people who prefer a $50 guitar over a prewar D-28 and visa versa. If you look hard enough, you’ll find two people who would rather have their hands sawed off than play guitar. This is no place for statistical analysis.

Noted.

Originally Posted by Scolaguitar

I have both Eastmans and Martin. I love both... My Eastmans have plenty of saddle. My D-18 doesn't. In the end, it really comes down to what your ears prefer. Sometimes I prefer the Martin sound. Sometimes the Eastman.

Like you, I love both, and don't prefer one sound over the other, which is a testament to a new Eastman vs a 50 year old Martin that I also bought new.

Also like you, my Martin's saddle is now used up, and the bridge is even shaved, to get its action down to the Eastman's 2mm. It will need a neck reset after I am gone, but the immediate effect is that a flat pick often touches the top when it dives down in between the strings.

[roylor4]

Originally Posted by vindibona1

Then more directly... The beautiful thing about capitalism is that people can charge what they can get. And while name brand and marketing come into play, if Eastman guitars were generally on the same level as Martin or Taylor, I would think they would be priced higher in general.

But again, as musicians, the sound that comes out of the instrument is what counts.

I totally agree with the final bit, as for the emboldened part - we differ.
I will caveat my statements by saying I am neither a fan-boy or basher of any brand. My fondness of budget priced, good performing guitars can be seen in my sig.

I find Taylors, Martins and Gibsons horribly overpriced. (My opinion only guys, grain of salt - don't jump on me - i know their are many higher priced guitars out there and have played many).

I have owned 4 Eastmans. Their name carries no "cache" - IE "Gotta be made in 'Merica". That cache carries weight and demands more $$$. Just the way it is.

I sold my last Eastman (E6OM) because it had tight string spacing and I didn't find it was much better than my B stock Ibanez AC240.

To me, Eastmans are reaching the level of being overpriced too. Yeah, same materials as Big Brand M.T or G for less $ - blah, blah. Same materials as lesser mentioned and more consistent brands (Alvarez Masterworks, Ibanez Artwoods) for considerably more $ too.

I now look for hidden budget gems in Pac-rim made guitars. I don't exclude Eastman, but their specs are highly suspect and only one in the 3 I owned had the listed specs. I can live with less hand made and more CNC - just give me a true 175" nut and/or other listed specs.

Bottom line, you can pretty much trust Martin specs, not so w/Eastman IME.

[Sonics]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

Not to mention, the garbage sound quality on YouTube. The notion that a guitar sounds on YouTube as it does in person is ludicrous. It’s also the epitome of Wishful Thinking for an Internet-obsessed world that evaluates and buys guitars online.

When I sit in a room with a bunch of guitars, I like to think I can often hear some differences.

As stated before, folks are questioning the methodology and adhering to brand loyalty. In that blind test ALL the guitars are suffering from the SAME handicap (...poor sound quality, etc). But you can still make a valid comparison, and you can hear differences. The Taylor is significantly brighter than the Silvertone (...which also has the biggest low end). If you can't hear that, then take your finger out your ear...

Scott also mentions his wife (...who probably knows very little about guitars and has no horse in the race) also prefers the tone of the Silvertone. So that's an opinion from a non-musician. Presumably she knows what she likes.

[AgentKooper]

I own two standard series level Martins, as well as two Blueridges. I've played many other Martins and a fair number of Eastmans. My experience has been that standard series Martins are just objectively higher quality objects than their Blueridge or Eastman counterparts. Whether that higher quality is worth the higher price is certainly debatable. And sound is obviously subjective -- I've got no problem believing that people could prefer the sound of a particular Eastman over a particular higher-priced Martin.

I think Eastmans and Blueridges are more competitive with Martins below the standard series. I recently bought a used 000-17sm. It's a nice guitar, and I bought it thinking it might replace my BR-163A. But after spending a couple weeks with it, I'm not really wowed by it, and I'm finding I prefer the Blueridge, in terms of both sound and aesthetics. I've got a nice long return period, and ultimately the 000-17sm is going back.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by roylor4

I totally agree with the final bit, as for the emboldened part - we differ.
I will caveat my statements by saying I am neither a fan-boy or basher of any brand. My fondness of budget priced, good performing guitars can be seen in my sig.

I find Taylors, Martins and Gibsons horribly overpriced. (My opinion only guys, grain of salt - don't jump on me - i know their are many higher priced guitars out there and have played many).

I have owned 4 Eastmans. Their name carries no "cache" - IE "Gotta be made in 'Merica". That cache carries weight and demands more $$$. Just the way it is.

I sold my last Eastman (E6OM) because it had tight string spacing and I didn't find it was much better than my B stock Ibanez AC240.

To me, Eastmans are reaching the level of being overpriced too. Yeah, same materials as Big Brand M.T or G for less $ - blah, blah. Same materials as lesser mentioned and more consistent brands (Alvarez Masterworks, Ibanez Artwoods) for considerably more $ too.

I now look for hidden budget gems in Pac-rim made guitars. I don't exclude Eastman, but their specs are highly suspect and only one in the 3 I owned had the listed specs. I can live with less hand made and more CNC - just give me a true 175" nut and/or other listed specs.

Bottom line, you can pretty much trust Martin specs, not so w/Eastman IME.

I find this a refreshing post - a down to earth, realistic point of view regarding prices and value, and reflects an awareness of strong global competition in the acoustic guitar market.

[Lamenramen]

Originally Posted by DanleyJ

My Eastman OM is heavier than my D-18. One complaint is that it doesn't always sound perfectly in tune on every chord. My D-18 sounds perfect no matter what chord I play.

Alright good to know I am not crazy. Because I experienced the same exact thing on a used Eastman OM as well. Especially higher up. The neck joint where it comes together with the body wasn’t as perfectly right either but the person told me it’s not been reset or adjusted. I haven’t seen anything like this with a bigger box brand and the intonation was better. Probably just a dud but for me this was the first guitar I had experienced in the premium category that suffered from these basic issues. Had it not had these problems I very well could have taken it home. I didn’t want to mess with the possibility of needing extensive repairs either now or in the near future.

[vintage40s]

Originally Posted by DanleyJ

If you had a choice between a Martin OM/000 and an Eastman OM and all were equal price wise and spec wise, which would you choose and why? ...

I have noticed a disconnect in the premise. A Martin of the same specs costs over twice as much as an Eastman. For instance, a rosewood OM or OOO:
The Eastman 020-OM sells for $1400.
https://www.laguitarsales.com/index....-om-56420.html
The equivalent Martin 000-28 sells for $3100.
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/det...000-28-natural

[erhino41]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

I decided to jump back in this thread.

I have an Eastman E10 00 SS. It is comparable in appeareance and size to my friend's CEO 7. They do not share the same voicing. The Martin is typically Martin and my E10 is more "Gibsonesque", but not as dry. It also has an Adirondack top. From a quality standpoint there is little difference. I would give the edge to he CEO 7, but they are very close.

They are both nice looking bursts.

Mine is easier to play, but I consider that subjective and arbitrary so YMMV.

The CEO 7 isn't unique enough tonewise for me to want to invest in one over the E10 which definitely has a certain uniqueness to it. Since it's the only small body guitar I own, it's a keeper. Very fun to play.

Those e10 00ss's are great guitars. I played one for a bit last night and have played that particulate guitar several times now. They are most definitely not ceo7 clones.

Eastman may build guitars in the martin style but they are not knock offs, they are their own unique guitars and they are mostly great guitars at that.

[dwasifar]

Originally Posted by Beakybird

I remember strumming a $5000 D35 at CME and thinking that it was the worst guitar I'd ever played. Then I realized it was a left-handed instrument, and I was playing it upside down.

If that really happened and is not a joke, it must have been comical.