Consistent Quality. Does it exist?

I'd wager that very few here have sampled enough Huss & Daltons or Collings to accurately judge their "consistency," but it probably doesn't matter. The fact is, high-volume, mass-produced guitars simply do not receive the individual attention that smaller, more boutique builders can give their products.

[TDavis]

Originally Posted by Willie Voltaire

I'd wager that very few here have sampled enough Huss & Daltons or Collings to accurately judge their "consistency," but it probably doesn't matter. The fact is, high-volume, mass-produced guitars simply do not receive the individual attention that smaller, more boutique builders can give their products.

Understandable.

It's a shame that with online buying becoming more and more en vogue, and going store to store becoming less popular (or the time to do so less available), that the real chance of a buyer getting a "dud" or being dissatisfied with they wind up with out of the box is very real.

I suppose the only defense is to buy online only from a source that offers a good return deal...which most if not all of our sponsors, and online-only sellers do.

[brencat]

Consistently Best Fit & Finish: Collings
Consistency Tonally: Collings, Taylor

[RP]

Originally Posted by Ozarkpicker

It's a shame that with online buying becoming more and more en vogue, and going store to store becoming less popular (or the time to do so less available), that the real chance of a buyer getting a "dud" or being dissatisfied with they wind up with out of the box is very real.

On the other hand, distance buying has increased the number of guitars available to us and so the chances of getting better and better instruments has increased exponentially...

[TennesseeWalker]

I own Huss and Daltons, Collings and Taylor guitars and have had several Goodalls come and go - and sampled quite a few in shops and those that belong to others.
All were/are high quality builds and very consistent quality - as for the tonal qualities, that's up to the person playing the guitar on each one.
Never heard a 'bad' one.

Have had some inconsistencies in a good selection of the 'M' company -
Not necessarily with the physical build quality but, what I heard from them gave me a clear understanding of why they were up for resale.

Originally Posted by Ozarkpicker

the real chance of a buyer getting a "dud" or being dissatisfied with they wind up with out of the box is very real.

On the other hand, if they have nothing to compare it to, how would they know?

[posternutbag]

Collings was the first thing that came to my mind, mandolins, acoustics, electrics, every one I have ever played has been remarkably consistent in tone, fit and finish. Personally, it just so happens that I don't really like the Collings tone, but I know exactly what a Collings guitar or mandolin is going to feel like and sound like before I pick it up. And if you do like the Collings tone you can virtually be assured that it will meet your every expectation.

That being said, I have never played a Bourgeois that I didn't love. I have played maybe 10; they all sounded great, so that is pretty consistent.

[vindibona1]

When the word "consistency" is used, I don't know that other than fit and finish there is a that narrow of a window in terms of sound production (tone). Mass produced guitars are going to have a general rate of consistency-but only general. Every piece of wood is unique, from a unique tree with a unique fiber structure. So how can one expect consistent (uniform) sound from inconsistent (by definition) resources? A good boutique luthier should be able to maximize the potential of each instrument... but produce a uniform sound across the model? I think an impossible task... at least in a predictable fashion.

And not to be forgotten, man/hours and cost of labor. It only stands to reason, the lower the price of the instrument the less labor intensive it will be if the company is set on making money.

[Alan Carruth]

It depends on what you mean by 'consistent quality' doesn't it? Are you talking about fit and finish, or tone? If it's fit and finish then the big factories should be better, but for consistent tone you'l probably need to see an individual luthier.

As has been pointed out, wood varies. I don't think most players realize how variable it is, and how little you can tell about that from just looking at it. Stiffness along the grain for a top of a given thickness of spruce of a given species can vary by more than 20% plus or minus from 'average', and cross grain stiffness varies much more. It stands to reason that you won't get 'the same' sound from two random tops that have been taken to the same thickness, but that's what factories have to do.

The reason is simple; labor is their most expensive input. They simply can't take the time to adjust things to get them to fit. Nor can they take the time to test their materials coming in to gauge the density and stiffness; they just grade them cosmetically, using the nicest looking ones on the most expensive guitars. Again, people might be surprised to know how often cosmetically high grade tops turn out to be pretty ordinary in terms of stiffness and other important acoustic qualities. Or worse...

Factories live on fit and finish. That's what they spend their time and effort improving. If the result is a lot of guitars that look 'the same' and sound pretty different, that's fine. After all, not every customer wants the same sound. Chris Martin (or whoever is in charge now) or Bob Taylor might not like a particular guitar's sound, but somebody will. So long as they can find that person they have a happy customer.

A lot of the basic tone of any guitar is 'baked in' to the design. That's why Martins sound like Martins and Gibsons sound like Gibsons. How 'good' a guitar is within that basic spec depends a lot on how all the parts work together, particularly the top and the bracing. When you get the right balance there, you can get a really good, or even great, guitar. A factory will hit that once in a while by chance; they got the 'right' braces on the particular top, and they ended up the 'right' shape. To hit a sound more consistently you need to 'work to the wood'. That necessarily entails varying some of the dimensions a bit to get the best sound from the particular set of wood you're working with. Production jigs won't allow this, but stepping outside of those constraints means you risk making things that won't fit as exactly as you'd like. Individual makers accept this risk to fit and finish in order to achieve a more consistent sound. They make up for the lack of tooling with highly developed tool skills, and time.

As far as I can tell, having tried it, I suspect it's impossible to make two guitars from wood that sound exactly alike. Still, with a reasonable effort one can make something that's 'arbitrarily close' to a given sound with care. The smaller the factory/shop the more likely it is that somebody can take the time to make the adjustments. The larger the shop the more that time will cost per hour. To paraphrase 'The Fantastiks': "The quality of the guitar depends on what you're willing to pay for it".

[musicman1951]

Originally Posted by Ozarkpicker

I just read a thread here about guitars you’ve owned that disappointed you, I’ve also read tons of posts that say the vast majority of guitar manufacturers produce instruments that are horribly inconsistent in build quality, tone & playability.

Let’s flip that around. Which high-end guitar manufacturers have you found that build good or even great guitars with great consistency? I mean...they can’t all be flaky!

Or can they...?

I have not experienced this horrible inconsistency - unless you expect them all to sound the same.

I've never played a Bourgeois or Lowden that wasn't wonderful - although I have not played hundreds. I'm afraid to play a Froggy, but I've never read about Froggy duds.

Yamaha has an almost frightening consistency with their band instruments, but I have not played very many of their guitars and couldn't say how they run.

Wood being the material it is and lower priced more production guitars being what they are I would expect an occasional excellent example and an occasional less than average example.

[Silly Moustache]

Whilst Guitars are (mostly) made of wood, which is organic and so even identical spec guitars will differ, but as far as build quality, fit and finish, no-one brand that I've seen comes close to Collings.

Until last month I had two DS2hs, one built in 1998 and another built in 2008. Identical specs, both fine guitars, very different sound and feel, and the newer one was tangibly heavier. .

[Dru Edwards]

Originally Posted by ChalkLitIScream

Taylor is probably my pick for the big brand that makes consistent, quality guitars. All of them sound nice.
But a step above would be Furch. A little lesser known, but imo sound better.

Still, variation exists and that inevitably means some will be better sounding than others. I like Taylor’s playability, sound and build quality. It surprises me that most other guitars have their nutslots set too high. Sure it’s a buffer for those who like it a big higher, but since virtually EVERYBODY gets that lowered, it hints that they’re set too high.

+1. Others have also mentioned Taylor in this thread. Bob Taylor has done a great job keeping his guitars (and Andy Power's guitars) fairly consistent.

[BrunoBlack]

Collings comes in #1 for consistent build and tone based on my experience. There are (at least) a few others that I’ve had the pleasure of owning & playing that I consider to be in the same league, but not quite as consistent as Collings.

[jrb715]

Originally Posted by Willie Voltaire

I'd wager that very few here have sampled enough Huss & Daltons or Collings to accurately judge their "consistency," but it probably doesn't matter. The fact is, high-volume, mass-produced guitars simply do not receive the individual attention that smaller, more boutique builders can give their products.

Well, I'm one who has sampled enough Huss & Dalton and Collings (as well as Bourgeois and Santa Cruz) over the years to at least have an informed opinion on their consistency. And, as you suggest, these relatively smaller makers all produce remarkably consistent quality from guitar to guitar: much more consistent samples than I have found with Martin or Gibson. Taylor guitars, however, are certainly similarly consistent--and thus similarly satisfying to folks who love the Taylor sound.

I've found Collings, as so many note, a step beyond all the other guitars I've sampled in producing consistently beautiful, playable and musically satisfying guitars. I've trusted Collings consistent quality to have Collings build four guitars for me--three acoustics and one electric--and each met all expectations (which I confess were remarkably high.)

[Bridgepin]

Originally Posted by Ozarkpicker

I just read a thread here about guitars you’ve owned that disappointed you, I’ve also read tons of posts that say the vast majority of guitar manufacturers produce instruments that are horribly inconsistent in build quality, tone & playability.

Let’s flip that around. Which high-end guitar manufacturers have you found that build good or even great guitars with great consistency? I mean...they can’t all be flaky!

Or can they...?

For my vote I say Bill Collings