At What Pricepoint Do Highend Guitars Not Sound Any Different?

[rockabilly69]

I have acoustic guitars that range in price from $500 to $5000, and when I'm recording guitars, many times, one of the lowest priced ones, is the one that fits the song the best tonewise. As said earlier, the chance of getting a stellar low-priced guitar is probably smaller percentage wise. That's why i don't buy acoustic guitars online, as I truly believe that certain guitars just resonate with you, and you've got to play everything out there you can get your hands on. Every now and then I pick up a guitar, and it has a sound that I just know I can make music with. One day a close friend of mine and I played every guitar in a store at every price range. There was a bunch of higher end Gibsons, Taylors, and Martins, but I found a guitar that cost $600 that bested everything in the store. I still have that guitar and have written a bunch of songs on it, and it hung on a hanger in my studio for years, so when I got an idea it was the first thing that I picked up.

[Dustinfurlow]

Okay, this is honestly a good thread started by the OP...I often wondered this before I had the chance to visit some nice vintage/boutique shops and luthier shows. Based on my experiences visiting Dream Guitars and Woodstock Invitational I think I might be able to point a few things out, objectively...

Most acoustic guitars above $5k must have 1 (if not all) of 3 things:

1. Heightened responsiveness and/or playability that can't be reproduced in a factory (obvious)
2. Celebrity status or historical value (Pre-war Martins, Olson, Somogyi)
3. Highly desirably tonewoods which may or may not be endangered.

The very best that I have played have had all three, and I can say with confidence they were fairly priced by the respectable dealers/luthiers according to how they sounded and felt.

I have mentioned in some threads and conversations before this one that I'll never forget the day Paul Heumiller from Dream Guitars put a $22k used Matsuda M1 (Italian/Brazilian) in my hands before telling me how much it was worth and the way it felt to play my tunes on it...I was devastated and still haven't recovered...it was the perfect guitar that could handle ANY style with grace and minimal effort.

It seems in the modern-fingerstyle realm of builders (think Somogyi and his apprentices, Greenfield, Beneteau, Casimi, list could go on for awhile) that heightened responsiveness and playability to a gentle/modest touch are highly sought after, so basically in short - there is no factory or small-shop guitar that can touch the level of responsiveness that say, a Matsuda or Beneteau could, because these guys carve and chisel away in micro-adjustments based on decades of knowledge to make sure the wood responds to the lightest touch and stills feel like a full, rewarding experience for the player.

On the other side, many historically-acclaimed vintage Martin and Gibsons from before the 1950s DO in fact sound INCREDIBLE and deserve their reputation, but each one is different on it's own merits. For instance, in my experience visiting Picker's Supply in Fredericksburg, a 34' OM18 completely blew a 36' OM-28 with Brazilian out of the water in immediate comparison, of which I was extremely surprised...and many Gibsons from that time-period have left me baffled at their price point...I get the antique charm but they felt like weathered pieces of un-responsive wood. Maybe appealing for a singer/songwriter who values his guitar tone second to his voice, but not very logical in terms of just buying a $500 Martin for your record, instead of $20k for a historical piece that sounds muffled.

In conclusion....all this being said, I've seen huge differences between $7k and $10k guitars, and very minuscule differences between $10k and $30 k guitars...(high-end luthier examples) but then I've played guitars that were $5k that I wouldn't trade for a $40k guitar if it were solely up to playability and responsiveness.

You just have to play them and decide yourself...what you read online about a builder can be 100% futile until you play it and listen for yourself.

[Glennwillow]

Originally Posted by Datcoolguy

As the title implies at what point do the high end Taylor's or Martin's etc. stop sounding any different, say between the $2000 mark vs $3k-5k?

Wood can only sound so good audibly, I just dont want to buy a 5k guitar when a 2k option isnt any distinguishably different to the ear. Playability is also a factor, but again a piece of wood is a piece a wood. At what pricepoint is this basically not a problem anymore?

Thanks in advance

There is an underlying assumption in your question -- the assumption of diminishing returns as price goes up.

Sometimes there are no diminishing returns. Sometimes the best guitars are the most expensive, depending, of course, on the player being capable of bringing the best out of the guitar.

I have heard some players play a high end guitar and it sounded no different than a very modestly priced guitar. So the player matters a great deal.

But take a very good player and hand him or her a very good guitar and it will generally sound better than a lower cost guitar. Not always, of course. There are outliers. But in general really expensive guitars are expensive because they sound better. They may also have a lot of expensive ornamentation, but my experience with expensive guitars that are very pretty is that they also sound outstanding.

- Glenn

[Dustinfurlow]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

There is an underlying assumption in your question -- the assumption of diminishing returns as price goes up.

Sometimes there are no diminishing returns. Sometimes the best guitars are the most expensive, depending, of course, on the player being capable of bringing the best out of the guitar.

I have heard some players play a high end guitar and it sounded no different than a very modestly priced guitar. So the player matters a great deal.

But take a very good player and hand him or her a very good guitar and it will generally sound better than a lower cost guitar. Not always, of course. There are outliers. But in general really expensive guitars are expensive because they sound better. They may also have a lot of expensive ornamentation, but my experience with expensive guitars that are very pretty is that they also sound outstanding.

- Glenn

Very, very well-said, Glenn.

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

There is an underlying assumption in your question -- the assumption of diminishing returns as price goes up.

Sometimes there are no diminishing returns. Sometimes the best guitars are the most expensive, depending, of course, on the player being capable of bringing the best out of the guitar.

I have heard some players play a high end guitar and it sounded no different than a very modestly priced guitar. So the player matters a great deal.

But take a very good player and hand him or her a very good guitar and it will generally sound better than a lower cost guitar. Not always, of course. There are outliers. But in general really expensive guitars are expensive because they sound better. They may also have a lot of expensive ornamentation, but my experience with expensive guitars that are very pretty is that they also sound outstanding.

- Glenn

I get the generality. Any examples?

[s2y]

A lot of this can boil down to bias. I can afford it, therefore, it's worth it. I can't afford it, therefore, it's NOT worth it. Like all other threads, minds probably won't be changed and this thread will be repeated.

Ears: Do you have the ear to tell the difference between guitar models, woods, etc? Some guys do, some don't. FWIW, the biggest local tone snobs I know have significant hearing loss. One thing to remember is that a guitar might sound better or worse at home vs. the store AND sound behind the guitar is very different than 8' in front.

Technique: Can you make a guitar sound the best? Heavy flat picking on a small Taylor is probably going to sound like a tin can. Delicate flat picking on a big dreadnought is probably going to sound slightly anemic.

There's a good amount of dissatisfaction from guys who spec'd out a guitar wrong for their desired tone.

What is in the price tag? Store brands are somewhat inflated because the store takes their cut, endorsements, advertisements, HR teams, etc. That $ goes into the cost of the guitar without actually improving it. The "sweet spot" builders usually sell direct and keep a low overhead. There are a few highly famous builders who can charge an arm and a leg because there is a line of people willing to pay it. Obviously these aren't 2-3x better than something built with similar quality/specs from a less known builder.

[GHS]

I've never had a guitar that cost more than 5k in my hands. And I've never owned one that cost more that 900. ( used price, thats what I look for). As stated before...its all subjective...some were real nice..others sounded like a towel was shoved into the soundhole. If you have the cash...hey, go for it. But dont let the price alone determine the tonal quality.

[musicman1951]

Originally Posted by Datcoolguy

Wood can only sound so good audibly, I just dont want to buy a 5k guitar when a 2k option isnt any distinguishably different to the ear. Playability is also a factor, but again a piece of wood is a piece a wood. At what pricepoint is this basically not a problem anymore?

This is a reasonable question that we can't begin to answer without more information.

How good are your ears?
What's your idea of a great guitar sound?
How well do you play?
What do you play?

I think a reasonable point of diminishing returns for a player with reasonable skills and ears would be around $3K.

I do believe in diminishing returns after that if defined as improvements in sound coming at a substantial cost. Does a $15K guitar sound better than a $3k guitar in the hands of a very good player? Every one I've heard does. But I won't say it sounds 5 times better - that's your diminishing returns. They are still there! They just cost a lot.

Do a reasonable assessment. If you're going to only strum cowboy chords with a 75 cent pick and you're happy with a relatively inexpensive guitar that makes perfect sense to me.

Never pay for sound you can't hear. And you'll have the added bonus of bragging to your friends that your guitar sounds just as good as that $15K guitar.

[Malcolm Kindnes]

Originally Posted by Datcoolguy

As the title implies at what point do the high end Taylor's or Martin's etc. stop sounding any different, say between the $2000 mark vs $3k-5k?

Wood can only sound so good audibly, I just dont want to buy a 5k guitar when a 2k option isnt any distinguishably different to the ear. Playability is also a factor, but again a piece of wood is a piece a wood. At what pricepoint is this basically not a problem anymore?

Thanks in advance

Apart from the fact that everyone will have an opinion on this, I think you are missing the point when you state that "a piece of wood is a piece of wood". There have been excellent guitars made from whisky casks and wooden pallets by very talented makers, just to show that it could be done.
When you pay a high price for a guitar you are paying primarily for the craftsmanship involved. Lots of builders will charge a significant premium for fancier wood because this is a good way for them to make money, but the real skill lies in the craftsmanship, and the better the craftsman the more he can charge for his/her time.
How much you are prepared to pay for their time is entirely your choice, personally I think $5,000 is a reasonable price to pay for a high quality new guitar made in a first world country. Higher than that and I think you are paying for a name or lots of "bling" which you really don't need.

[J Patrick]

...if you want to believe that high end independent luthiers...who have been building for decades and have established a reputation that allows them to charge higher prices and build a waiting list for commissions....can’t produce a superior instrument....go ahead and believe that...it’s your opinion and you are welcome to it....

...the existence of such an instrument does not make less expensive ones sound any better or worse...that’s on the players....and as Glen suggested...the higher end offerings are also dependent on player...that’s not to say that the player has to be a monster to derive better tone from an instrument...a modicum of talent may be all that is needed....

....what we are willing to spend for any instrument is the X-factor...what is the value to the buyer?....personally...I could find a way to commission a 10 to 20 thousand dollar build without compromising my financial well-being....but....for me...the value just isn’t there....I will not derive the pleasure and satisfaction that the expenditure should warrant...but that’s me...not the instrument or luthier who built it...

....so I guess it’s important to know what you want...and what you are willing to spend...but I think it’s naive to think that there is little to no difference between a 2000 dollar guitar and a 10,000 dollar guitar....sure you can personally feel that way...still...it does not make it so...

[RalphH]

I can sort of see what you're getting at -- once we get to a certain price point then different models are just different rather than really 'better', though some will be better for some things than others, which makes it hard to do a 'better'/'worse' comparison. I'm sure I could find a scenario where my £800 GS mini would be 'better' than a top of the range Martin dreadnought, but it certainly wouldn't be for strumming and flat-picking.

Take a really simple example, the J-45;

The 'studio' is walnut back and sides, the 'standard' is mahogany and the 'deluxe' is rosewood.

The three price points from studio to standard to deluxe make the level of bling on the guitar to from 'good' to 'better' to 'best', but the tone goes 'different' to 'different' to 'differenter'.

For some purposes, the studio might be 'better' than the deluxe, for other purposes the other way around.


That said, a Gibson will always be 'better' than the equivalent Epiphone in my opinion. So if we're asking what price point gets you a 'good' guitar, then probably about £750 for a Mexican Marton or Taylor, but then it depends on the manufacturer; Gibson won't sell you anything for £750.

[rokdog49]

I owned an Eastman E20D which I purchased used and sold to a friend.
It cost under $1000 and sounded fantastic...better than a great deal of much pricier guitars I have played.
I just don’t think there is any consistent rule that says if you spend more, you get more tone wise.
As far as the difference between say my $2000 D18 and something costing twice as much, all I can offer is I really like what I have and I would have a hard time spending thousands more for something even if I acknowledged it was better.
It does exactly what I want it to do.

[raysachs]

The obvious answer to the OP's question is $2,347.26. Up to that point, big differences in sound. Beyond that point, no difference at all.

There, done.

In seriousness, it's up to your own perceptions. I tend to find the sweet spot somewhere between $1500 and about $2500. BUT, I have an 000-15SM that cost me less than $1300 new that sounds and plays as well as anything to my ear. And, on the other end, every comparison set of sound clips I've ever heard tells me that the D-41 is a really different sounding guitar than a D28 - whether you like all of those amazing overtones or not is a personal thing (I don't think I could take advantage of all that and it would probably just get in my way), but they do seem to be there. I've never played a custom luthier built guitar, but I'm sure someone with really refined ears and a great player might find exactly what he or she is looking for in a $20,000 custom built by their favorite luthier. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to hear the subtle distinctions, but who knows - I'm never gonna find out.

Bottom line, know your budget and play everything you can up to that budget, but don't be afraid to try stuff well below it. I'd budgeted about $2500 for my last guitar and after playing quite a number of guitars I had some interest in, my favorite combination of sound and playability came in about half of that, so that's what I bought. My first really good guitar, 40+ years ago came from a budgeted $500, but a used 1968 D-28 was head and shoulders above anything else I played and it was only $400, so that's the guitar I bought (and was my only acoustic for 25 years).

[RalphH]

I don't know the answer, but I can narrow it down for you.

My hummingbird sounds better than my GS Mini, so it's more than £800

[GHS]

I think the saddest part of this is that most of the ultra high end builds, ( now I could be wrong but...), wind up in the hands of collectors...talented maybe, but still collectors with the disposable income to have such fine instruments. And so many super talented musicians will never be able to afford them and bring the music within those instruments to the world.