#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This is a bridle joint as used by Martin in the old days. This is Eastman's joint. Very different. Martin's diamond carved from a one piece blank is also structural. It doesn't have to be glued from different pieces of wood to be structural. ........Mike Last edited by 00-28; 01-25-2015 at 08:47 PM. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Just watched the video. Martin is more mellow of the two, Eastman with its red spruce top is brighter but I feel that it will mellow out over time, after all red spruce takes longer to break in. I did not see it listed anywhere as to which strings were used, and how old the strings were, I typically prefer strings week old or older on my Blueridge parlor guitar.
Just what Ted mentions, I am surprised how Eastman is not too far, at its price point it really is a lot of guitar for the money. My personal preference is to sitka vs red spruce, so Martin wins this round for me.
__________________
2004 Martin D15M 1998 Fernandes Strat 1999 Gretsch MIJ 6120-60 Last edited by swsman; 01-26-2015 at 12:18 AM. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That's why Marin used the 2 piece neck/ head stock joint, back when they used Spanish Cedar. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
How do the fret heights compare? Nice video, and one of my favorite songs.
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The pieces are glued together as a 3 piece neck blank and then carved. They are all strong, one is not better than the other. .......Mike Last edited by 00-28; 01-26-2015 at 10:16 AM. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
As Ted said, apples and oranges both in size and woods. I played a number of both over at Acoustic Vibes the other day. The red spruce top on the Eastmans is quite different from Sitka.
I recently got an E6OM (sitka/mahogany) and it's way more mellow. It's not a Martin tone exactly of course, but it's much more in the ballpark of the 000-18 I tried there than the E10OM (adirondack/mahogany) was. Eastman doesn't make a sitka topped 00 I don't think, so there's no exact matchup. But the E20-OO is a great sounding guitar to my ear. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
how old is the Martin compares too the Eastie cause I'm hearing it like the Eastie aint played in yet. ??
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Yes it is an 0 vs 00 comparison, and that is a big part of the difference in tone. Having played examples of both brands I'd guess, however, that a comparable Eastman would still be brighter. But I disagree with those who think the Martin is in a different league, or believe the tone differences are a reflection of price. There are a whole lot of very expensive guitars that are, by design, brighter than Martins. What you've really got here isn't different leagues of lesser tone quality, but a matter of taste. One man's warmth is another man's muddy. Another man's sparkle is one man's thin.
What I see here is two guitars separated by an imperfect nut slot and a few thousand dollars. I believe I'd have to hold them in my hands and hear them for myself, before I'd decide which one is "best." P
__________________
One amazing '03 OJ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Not all Eastman's have a Scarf joint. Many have Volute, with a birds beak. Look at any Eastman OM-6, OM-10, OM-20. However, the heal is stacked. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Frets are very similar. I'd have to look hard to find a difference in size.
The neck joints in the Eastman probably do make it stronger and more durable without sacrificing quality. The physical differences rest mainly on size, top wood, and case quality. If the nut slot and one or two slightly high frets on the Eastman were fixed, the feel between them would be virtually non existent. The quality of the Eastman is certainly in the same league as the Martin. Yet my opinion is colored by the perfection of one and the minor imperfections of the other rather than a quantifiable, demonstrative quality variable. The biggest differences are in the intangibles and aren't quantifiable, though people tend to rely on cost to gauge these types of characteristics. I'll give it a try: If the Martin is 100 points, I'd rate the Eastman at 97 points, after the imperfections are resolved - one point off for cheap case hardware, making the guitar itself a 98 - all extremely subjective, of course. 2 points off for not being love-at-first-play like the Martin was. There's no getting around the differences in tone - but it's not as though one is better than another - it's a matter of preference. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Eastmans are in the big leagues. There's no question in my mind about that. P
__________________
One amazing '03 OJ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know the technical name for the joint but here's a picture of my Eastman e20-00
As far as tone compared to the Martin, Eastman has a tone all it's own and the Adirondack top makes a difference. I don't consider the Eastman inferior to my Martin, just different, which is good! Here is a really quick sound sample of the Eastman 00, excuse the poor playing and recording quality: |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, looky there, a scarf joint. ....Mike
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
You need to look in the other plane. Eastman uses a compound joint, not a single plane scarf joint. It's not simple.
You obviously have never looked closely, at this type of joint, or you would understand the structural advantage, over a one piece neck. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Walthenry,
Please educate me. I have already asked for some evidence of such a joint, but all I see is a scarf joint with a clever diamond carved from the lower neck shaft. I don't understand how a $1500 guitar could use such a complicated neck/headstock joint as a bridle/birds beak joint. This is not something you will see on a low to moderate priced, mass produced guitar. .......Mike |
|
Tags |
compare, eastman e20p, martin 00-28vs |
Thread Tools | |
|