Does better tone come from better build quality?

[mawmow]

I have many very different guitars and I love them all ! Godin 5th Avenue, Seagull Performer CH CW, Eastman AC122ce, Alvarez AP66, Guild F-30, Larrivées, Gibson Ls, Taylors 322, 412ce, 510, 512, 516 (GS-5). So what, some days I feel bad and play so-so on any of them while other days I play better and sound better on any of them. Technique and moods matter more than quality, but quality does matter.

[Alan Carruth]

Most guitars are built to very similar designs, which have been worked out over a long time by trial and error. Luthiers are always trying to make something that's a little better, and when one of the experiments actually succeeds (which is rare!) everybody else copies it. The new feature quickly becomes part of the 'standard'.

In a situation like that the objective difference between an 'average' thing and a very good one becomes quite small. At one point my violin making teacher helped test out a number of great violins; Strads and Guarnaris, and found they were quite similar. The group decided that they needed a 'standard of badness' to compare to, and found what everybody agreed was one of the worst fiddles they'd ever seen at a junk shop. It turned out that the overall power output of the junker was only 5% less than the best instrument they had tested. Later she was able to re-work the junker and get it to sound quite nice, so they named it 'Pygmalion'. In terms of guitars this means that if you start with a good design, use decent wood, and built carefully, you're going to end up with something that's at least 'average' in sound.

There's another corollary here, though: as the difference between 'average' and 'great' becomes smaller, those small differences become more important. What's the difference in elapsed time for the runner who won the 100 meter dash in the last Olympics, and the one who came in last? Granted, all of those guys are 'great' runners, but even compared with an 'average' runner the difference is not all that huge.

One outcome of all of this is that it's very hard to consistently produce work that's at the top of the distribution: you need to get everything just right. In the case of a guitar, where the material is so variable and the criteria of judgement are all at least somewhat subjective, 'just right' is a moving target. The 'correct' thickness for this piece of top wood might be different from that one, if you're trying for excellence. As a result, somebody who knows what they're doing can usually make a much better than average instrument from almost any wood. It's also distressingly easy to make a poor instrument from really nice wood if you're not careful.

High-end production shops usually do a good job of fit and finish; that's what they live on. They can't take the time to adapt to every piece of wood, though. What you get, in terms of quality of sound, is a distribution, with a lot of 'average or a little better' instruments, the occasional disappointment, and, once in a while, something that's really great. The more careful the work the higher the 'standard of mediocrity' will tend to be, as the maker avoids the sorts of bonehead errors that can kill an otherwise good instrument. Of course, since everybody has a bit different idea of what' great' is, almost anything they make is likely to be [U]somebody's[U] 'Holy grail'.

I'll cite one more violin study. A large number of instruments of all sorts were tested objectively, and also in listening tests where they were rated for quality. A computer was used to work out correlations between quality ratings and the spectral response of the instruments, to see what objective traits seemed to predict 'quality'. When they looked at the data they found that, as you might expect, over 90% of the 'old master' Italian instruments in their sample had all of the 'quality' markers, and the proportion went down as you moved to instruments that sell for less money. However, even in the very bottom of the 'quality' line, modern mass produced student fiddles, about 6% had all of the acoustic markers of good quality. Even a blind pig can find an acorn once in a while....

[tadol]

Better tone? What does that mean? Too often, a vast majority of people equate volume with tone, and really don’t know what they are hearing or what is “good” or what is “bad”. And when people say that tone comes from the player - thats not really true either. The player is a big part of the equation, but the instrument is equally, if not more, important. A great player cannot make an average instrument sound really great - maybe really good - but not great. In fact, you put a good instrument into the hands of a great player, and you quickly hear where the deficiencies are in that instrument. The same can be said of an average player with a really great instrument - its easy for even a beginner to play a few strums on a great instrument and it can sound great, but its nothing compared to putting that same instrument into the hands of a really great player - thats how you can hear all the nuances and balance and range that the instrument can deliver, when the player knows how to play it.

And to complicate it further - when you get into really high end luthier built instruments, they are built with a specific playing/tonal goal. What a bluegrass player needs from a great instrument is very different from what a jazz player needs, or a singer/songwriter, or a fingerstylist. There is no one instrument that would ever meet the needs of all those players, and be considered great. You can have some very good instruments that will do a very good job with multiple styles, but I’ve never seen one that does as well at different styles as instruments built to meet the needs of a specific style or player.

So build quality is part of it, but to me, that is a very separate question and very difficult to correlate specifically with tone -

[slimey]

A good Luthier will tap tune the top sheet to the back and sides and adjust the brace thickness to get the optimum life out of the woods.
So you end up with a more resonant box.
The tone will be still be subjective but a well built box ( for want of a better word ) will have better sustain and dynamics. Then it's a matter of what materials the guitar is built out of and what "tone " the builder was targeting .
There'a no doubt, none, in my mind that a guitar built to your needs, well tuned by the Lutier will out perform any mass produced instrument.
Having said that there is a lot of mass produced instruments that are very very good but I'll still take a hand tuned instrument.

[slimey]

zI think this video showing various Lowdens is a very good example of various " tones " one builder can achieve.
Which is good is up to your ear and style. https://youtu.be/GnldbiOwsu0

[guitar george]

Originally Posted by slimey

zI think this video showing various Lowdens is a very good example of various " tones " one builder can achieve.
https://youtu.be/GnldbiOwsu0

Very nice fingerpicking and nice sound. I wonder which of these guitars would be good for heavy strumming?

[redir]

To expand a bit on what Alan said above, that's why it's very important to test drive a guitar before you buy it. You might love the sound of a D-18 for example but not any two of them are alike for the reasons mentioned and the fact that it's impossible to build two identical guitars.

Many years ago I wanted a cheap classical guitar and I was working at a music store. They had 4 identical Yamaha's in there and I could clearly tell them apart and was able to pick what I perceived as the best one. If I was to just order one online then who knows which one on the quality curve of production I would have received.

This is why experienced small shop luthiers are so good too. Because they are more apt to work a piece of wood for a given tone and produce instruments on the hign end of the quality spectrum with consistency.

[6L6]

I've always felt that the bottomfeeder Taylors like the 110/114 and 210/214 are the best sounding guitars Taylor makes (with a special nod to their 814ce LTD with cocobolo back and sides).

One of the Pre War Martin D-45's I've had the honor of playing was a total sonic dud. The build quality, however, was spectacular and that's why it sold quickly for over $300K.

[highvibrational]

Thank you for your thoughts. I find that I'm having a lot of conflicting feelings about acquiring a higher end guitar for the following reasons:

-I'm not certain that the paying more money means I'll get a better sounding instrument
-I'm not sure if as a singer/songwriter, it will really matter what I'm playing as long as it goes with my voice
-Since I don't want to pay retail, buying online seems like shooting in the dark
-I love my guitars but I am seduced by the beauty and legendary status of the Martin D-28 (and other Martins in particular), but don't know if I'll really play the guitar in the same way as my beaters. It could possibly remain a closet queen.
-Do I want a D or an OOO or OM? Mahogany or Rosewood?
-Is GAS something one should give in to?

Simply too many questions. So, I'll sit and wait until I get a green light on something, or nothing.

[tadol]

Originally Posted by highvibrational

Thank you for your thoughts. I find that I'm having a lot of conflicting feelings about acquiring a higher end guitar for the following reasons:

-I'm not certain that the paying more money means I'll get a better sounding instrument
-I'm not sure if as a singer/songwriter, it will really matter what I'm playing as long as it goes with my voice
-Since I don't want to pay retail, buying online seems like shooting in the dark
-I love my guitars but I am seduced by the beauty and legendary status of the Martin D-28 (and other Martins in particular), but don't know if I'll really play the guitar in the same way as my beaters. It could possibly remain a closet queen.
-Do I want a D or an OOO or OM? Mahogany or Rosewood?
-Is GAS something one should give in to?

Simply too many questions. So, I'll sit and wait until I get a green light on something, or nothing.

In order - correct, correct, partly correct, see below, all good choices, and yes -

A guitar is a tool for making music - drop all the concerns about resale or investment, buy the tool you want or need, and enjoy using it. Playing a great guitar is a real pleasure, and its hard to put a price on happiness -

[zmf]

Originally Posted by highvibrational

T
-I'm not certain that the paying more money means I'll get a better sounding instrument

That's easy enough to figure out. Hit some high-end shops and play a few. Doesn't mean you have to buy.

[redir]

Originally Posted by tadol

In order - correct, correct, partly correct, see below, all good choices, and yes -

A guitar is a tool for making music - drop all the concerns about resale or investment, buy the tool you want or need, and enjoy using it. Playing a great guitar is a real pleasure, and its hard to put a price on happiness -

This is absolute true. If I am a mechanic do I really need a Snap On tool chest that cost 20 times as much as a Sears Craftsman one?

I will take this adage of, 'a guitar is a tool for making music', from a different perspective though. As a builder of guitars I like to think of it more this way, 'a guitar is a tool for producing tone.' Then the musician who buys it can make the music

[gitarro]

It depends what you mean by better build quality. I would agree that the guitar tend to sound better if it is made with more attention and skill in individually voicing that guitar to maximise its tonal potential. If you mean that the build quality in the sense of neater fit and finish then it may not make any difference.

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by 6L6

I've always felt that the bottomfeeder Taylors like the 110/114 and 210/214 are the best sounding guitars Taylor makes (with a special nod to their 814ce LTD with cocobolo back and sides).

One of the Pre War Martin D-45's I've had the honor of playing was a total sonic dud. The build quality, however, was spectacular and that's why it sold quickly for over $300K.

If a D-45 sold for 300k I'd bet it had little to do with build quality and everything to do with the pre-war year in which it was made, and how few were made that year.

Never had the same attraction to 100 and 200 series Taylors either. I've played a couple of outstanding 700 and 800 series.

[s2y]

When compared to an entry level laminate, almost always. Compared to a store brand with the same lumber quality and similar specs, the difference isn't as pronounced. Sometimes volume, sustain, and/or responsiveness are better with higher quality builds.

Playability has always been a top priority for me. Tone doesn't matter if my hands aren't happy.

I've had excellent luck with my custom builds.