RichLite : Thumbs up or Thumbs down?

[Steadfastly]

Originally Posted by IH8FRETBUZZ

Ok, I’m kinda on the fence with RichLite. I get the whole save the planet thing and I’m not necessarily opposed to change. However, when I play a guitar with a RichLite fingerboard vs a Ebony or Rosewood, the RichLite just kinda feels, cheap I guess. I know it’s actually better in the ways that should matter. Durability, ease of maintenance, etc. But I guess I’m kinda old fashioned when it comes to guitars. So I’m gonna go with “Thumbs Down. “

We all have a choice.

[Steadfastly]

Originally Posted by mercy

The main problem with a guitar having a richlite board is it is usually paired with a richlite bridge. The bridge does things to the sound of a guitar. Try replacing your ebony bridge with rosewood bridge and youll see.
So I ask you, if you were spending a few thousand dollars on making a guitar by lets say Goodall would you request richlite?

But bridges and fretboards are two different things. How does it change the sound?

[hat]

To me it's more a matter of function. On a boutique guitar a definite no. On a gigging guitar, one that's going to get played a lot, at a lot of different venues, sure - why not?

[Paddy1951]

Originally Posted by mcduffnw

The main problem with the vast majority of people who complain about guitars that have Richlite fingerboards...and/or especially bridges...and whatever shortcomings they perceive in the tone quality of said Richlite adorned guitars, is that their own playing and tone/dynamic response technique is really the equivalent of being a 25 or 30 handicap golfer. So as to say, whatever deficiencies they here in the Richlite are not the fault of the Richlite...or the guitar...but rather on their "less than optimal" playing/tone production technique.

I am quite sure that if you put a Richlite fingerboard and bridge of Lawrence Juber's guitar, he is still going to sound just like Lawrence Juber.

Ditto any other guitarist of note...

It ain't the Richlite...

The Music is You!

duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher.

Boy, ths hits the nail on the head with most of the things we concern ourselves about, things guitar.

[Wolfram]

Originally Posted by IndyHD28

...

Meanwhile, Martin continues to stain their Ebony fretboards and problems are occurring with the stain not bonding to brownish portions of the wood. So, instead of embracing variegated Ebony, promoting it as beautiful and good, it’s a problem for Martin. Legacy vs Innovator.

An interesting perspective. It could equally be argued that Martin is the innovator, by transitioning to a new material with excellent physical and tonal properties, whereas Taylor have stuck with the traditional but dropped their quality standards.

Cheers,
David

[steelvibe]

Originally Posted by IndyHD28

Legacy vs Innovator.

Martin Est. 1883

Hmmm, so you get to innovator status without studying the innovator

[Paddy1951]

Originally Posted by Wolfram

An interesting perspective. It could equally be argued that Martin is the innovator, by transitioning to a new material with excellent physical and tonal properties, whereas Taylor have stuck with the traditional but dropped their quality standards.

Cheers,
David

Dropped their quality standards? Because they now use resources more wisely and efficiently? Because they may actually be insuring some future supply?
Boy, I don't get that one at all.

Humans have placed arbitrary value on pure black ebony vs stripped or otherwise not pure black ebony.

Does the less than totally black ebony suffer from sonic inequities? Does it fall apart or rot after 18 months on the guitar? Do all your strings except the G turn sharp because of less than black ebony?

Well, of course not. Sigh...

[IndyHD28]

Originally Posted by steelvibe

Martin Est. 1883

Hmmm, so you get to innovator status without studying the innovator

First of all, both companies describe themselves (today) in these terms.

Of course Martin innovated through the years. Just think of the Mr. Martin that bet his company on X-bracing design, a revolution compared to whatever was the conventional wisdom of the day. (Kind of reminds you of another current maker today, doesn’t it?).

Taylor leads the industry, today, with innovation in design, inside and out in an attempt to improve the guitar. Martin works to copy what they made in the 30’s, a tacit admission that they’ve done little since to improve the guitar. Martin’s strategy appeals to mostly Baby Boomers who can afford to buy multiple copies of these premium guitars. But that demographic will eventually fade.

[s2y]

I'd be more than willing to give RichLite a chance. As much as I like the look and sound of gaboon ebony, it moves around too much, especially if you live in the Midwest. It's even worse if you have the much longer fingerboard plank on a bass guitar.

I'm all about how a guitar plays. Less maintenance is always a bonus. I'm also far from a traditionalist.

Originally Posted by Steadfastly

We all have a choice.

For now. 20-30 years? That's anyone's guess.

[D41Fan]

A definitely NO for Richlite for me. I wont even look at a guitar with it..Sorry Gibson. For the price I pay for a new guitar, I expect to see some wood. Nuff said!

[Earl49]

Don't care either way. Choose whatever works for you. I also don't get into what sub-species of spruce is used for the top bracing, or what the bridge plate inside is made from, or what metals make up the strap buttons. Sound, playability, sound, aesthetics, and sound are the priorities. If it sounds good, plays well, looks good, and sounds good - I'm OK.

BTW many of my guitars are carbon fiber these days, and they all have polished black epoxy fret boards.

[1Charlie]

I find it interesting that we covet beautiful, highly-figured Brazilian Rosewood fretboards and bridges, yet we struggle to accept any figuring at all in ebony.

Better, in my opinion, to use ebony that has interesting grain and color, than a man-made substitute.

Of course, we also need to engage in careful forest management, to ensure that supplies remain plentiful, and the environment is protected. Otherwise, ebony will require the same restrictions as Brazilian.

I have no objections to Richlite (or Blackwood Tek), and we all should probably get used to the alternatives to traditional materials, as their supply continues to diminish.

I always find it a little amusing when Richlite's opponents say, "I want my guitar to be made out of wood," while blissfully ignoring the plastic bridge pins, dot markers, saddle, nut, pickguard, truss cover, and tuner buttons that adorn their own guitars.

Oh, well. Having choices is a good thing, as long as we each get to make our own.

[sublro]

I assume that Taylor has more than verified that striped portions of ebony they use have exact same sonic and durability properties as the jet black stuff....

Bob's a guitar maker first and an environmentalist wherever he can make it pragmatic. I love what he's attempting to do with the perceptions of the aesthetics of ebony.

Most of the striped ebony I've seen on Taylors, especially where it's really conspicuous, has been on their high-end models, proving that he's putting his money where his mouth is on changing the perceptions of what's beautiful and high-end.

Richlite is another way to come at things, and seems to work well for many people.

Great moves by both Martin and Taylor from where I sit.

Originally Posted by D41Fan

A definitely NO for Richlite for me. I wont even look at a guitar with it..Sorry Gibson. For the price I pay for a new guitar, I expect to see some wood. Nuff said!

Then you should say "sorry Martin," too! Actually Gibson makes the overwhelming majority of its guitars with rosewood, maple, granadillo, or walnut fretboards. It's only the models formerly spec'd with ebony that receive the Richlite.