Wood guitars vs. composite

[HD28LSV]

I bought my first Composite Acoustic in 2004 directly from the factory because noone had them in my area. I had that gutiar for about a year and a half. It was a Legacy A/E with vintage tayloring. I then sold it to fund the buy of a Taylor 510CE that I was gassing for at a local Taylor dealer. I have had several martins to compare to during this time and still have 2 martins and the Taylor 510CE. I have tried several wood combinations and always fall back to the spruce top & mahogany B/S tone. I just purchase another CA Legacy A/E and will put my taylor 510CE up on the chopping block soon.

Heres why the CA wins. I play mostly at church and am involved in a couple youth ministries and a prison ministry. I find myself reluctant to let a kid come up and even touch my taylor or martins and have no trouble letting them touch the CA because they can't hurt it. Also playing plugged in if you know what you are doing you can make most good A/E guitars sound good if you know how to mix them. The Taylor goes and the Composite Acoustic stays. IMHO The overtone thing is overplayed by people who wouldn't consider a CA for what it is. Unplugged this guitar has a beutiful and complex sound but what do I know.

The martins have to stay because you can't go to a bluegrass jam with a composite guitar or a taylor for that matter. Nothing sounds like a martin in bluegrass!



In the end its a personal preference. Find what you need and like and play it!

[engr_scotty]

I played a CA Vintage and it was wonderful, tone, action, everything. Maybe a tad weak on the low end...but the Vintage is the smaller body style. Still, I couldn't bring myself to buy one as my *only* guitar (hey, I have a budget!)... I would love to have one as a second guitar to take out...

One thing that bugs me about composites: How do they age? Regular guitars get better with age. How about composites? do they get worse?...or maybe it takes them longer to open up, etc.,if they open at all... Anyone know?

[PTL]

A few of observations:
1. At the same price ranges, CA and Rainsongs will beat a good number of wood guitars for some people.
2. When you get to the high end solo luthier or small shop wood guitars, they cost more and sound better than the graphite guitars. As well they should.
3. However, graphite guitars (particularly CA) is improving in tone faster than wood guitars. I do believe that in less than a decade, graphite guitars will surpass even the finest wood handmades - but that's just my opinion. Only time will prove me right or wrong.
4. If they sound very similar, I'd pick a synthetic over wood just for the resistance to climate changes. I love the look of deep curls in Koa or the beautiful webbing of Brazilian or.... However, I'd take stability over visual candy every time. Form follows function.

PTL

[Poetmonk]

Played a friends Rainsong and it was not for me. Just did not like the sound at all. To funky plastic sounding to me, and trust me i really wanted to like it. There's just something about the sound of wood for me that's sends me floating. But that's just me.

[Poetmonk]

Originally Posted by PTL

A few of observations:
1. At the same price ranges, CA and Rainsongs will beat a good number of wood guitars for some people.
2. When you get to the high end solo luthier or small shop wood guitars, they cost more and sound better than the graphite guitars. As well they should.
3. However, graphite guitars (particularly CA) is improving in tone faster than wood guitars. I do believe that in less than a decade, graphite guitars will surpass even the finest wood handmades - but that's just my opinion. Only time will prove me right or wrong.
4. If they sound very similar, I'd pick a synthetic over wood just for the resistance to climate changes. I love the look of deep curls in Koa or the beautiful webbing of Brazilian or.... However, I'd take stability over visual candy every time. Form follows function.

PTL

Wow, that's a bold statement my brother.

[Bill Cory]

Ilove the sound of wood, but I have also enjoyed composites (Rainsong line in the music store where I worked) and will buy a composite (CA Cargo if it's all I've heard it is) when I can. I think that if you are in your house, or doing a gig, and you want the perfect tones of the wood guitars, then the composites can't take their place.

But if you are out and about, driving, riding, in the back yard, at a barbecue or the beach, then the composite is perfect, with better tone than most "beaters" have, and good intonation and no damage from heat, moisture or salt air. They have their place, and their tone is excellent for that place.

Wood is king, but the composites have a place in the king's court.

[PTL]

Lol...Poetmonk.

'Bold' is dying for one's beliefs. My statement took no effort or risk.... But I yes, I understand what you mean.

Well, I'll see in 10 years if I'm right. I remember the day when my brother raved about the first Apple digicam in the prehistoric days and predicted that digital will replace film in 20 years. I laughed. Hard. Well, he was right.

PTL

[walkin_man]

I sold my Taylor 414ce 25th Anniversary to buy a Rainsong.

After, 6 years of only playing a graphite guitar, I was DYING to play a wood guitar again. The Rainsong is gone - I own a Taylor again and I couldn't be happier!

Graphite guitars have some qualities to them, but they can NEVER replace a wood guitar.

[Spieler]

Originally Posted by thistle

Me too - I know I should just accept and embrace them for what they are but I don't want to play a guitar that looks like Darth Vader.

I'm fine with wood patterned HPL. I think wood patterned carbon fibre would be much more easily accepted by traditionalists like me.

As of right now, if a guitar is non-wood, I think I prefer that being very clear visually-- ie, that the guitar look non-traditional. For some reason, it sits better with me that a guitar clearly looks like it's made of carbon (or other material). I can accept a non-wood guitar on its own terms, but the current wood-patterned ones usually scream "Fake" to me.

However, I would not be surprised if, in the next 5-20 years, technological innovations and imagination enable guitar builders to create non-wood guitars that look spectacularly like the best wood. What if the "wood pattern" was presented with awesome figure, visual depth, and the appearance of silking on the top? To me, so many of the high gloss wood guitars I've seen are "so pretty, they look fake". What if that "look" could be replicated, at affordable cost (because it would simply be a matter of selecting the correct computer imagery, once the basic software and material processes are set), so that most people couldn't immediately tell if the material under the gloss was wood, or something less organic?

Me, I think I'd still prefer my wood to be wood, and other materials to tend towards the Dark Side (heh), but it will be interesting to see what develops in the years ahead.

- Sarah S.

[MJH]

I would not sell my Taylor to get a composite, but fortunately, I did not have to. I have had my Rainsong WS 1000 for over 6 months now and absolutely love it. I still prefer a wood sound, but this has a sound all it's own and I really like it. Plus it can sit out on a guitar stand all of the time and I never have to worry about it. I can grab it and play whenever and it's always in tune! I like the look, but the idea of a composite made to look like wood is intriquing.

There is a lot of love on this forum for CA's, but if you are in the market, please try the Rainsong. I played both and ended up with a Rainsong. I wanted the distictive sound. I believe it's kind of a "Martin or Taylor" thing. People are going to like one or the other better.

[rforman15]

I'd also like to see what these carbon fiber builder could do with an archtop, that might be something I would look at. And as far as making a carbon fiber guitar look like wood, I've been impressed with those relic looking guitars that Fender makes, I'd like to see a carbon fiber acoustic archtop that looks like a relic wood archtop from the golden age of jazz. And if they could get it to sound like those new Parker archtops, and at a reasonable price. I'd take notice for sure.

[mhs]

Whenever I see a thread entitled X vs. Y, where X & Y are guitar brands, or types of guitars, I generally stop paying attention, but since I'm one of those that got a Cargo guitar, I wanted to respond (probably not in the way the CA fans would like me to).

There's so many important and unimportant pieces to that sort of statement (x vs. y) as to make it nearly insignificant when it comes to what actually is important about the original topic.

These are some observations of mine (that of course can be completely discarded since they're subjective):

• The musician is the primary ingredient, not the instrument. The instrument is some small percentage of the total.
  • Charlie Parker played a 10 buck plastic sax.
  • Art Tatum played on every cheap, out of tune piano he needed to.
  • Too many examples of the same thing to mention here.
  • The bottom line for this is that good players will overcome any "reasonable" instrument's deficiencies. Should they have to? There's too many factors to get into that.
• There is a lot of brand/builder loyalty, above and beyond the point where it makes much sense.
  • All guitar makers have turned out better and worse guitars.
  • When I've compared same model/brand guitars, there is often no way to tell that they came from the same planet.
• The "New Gizmo" factor weighs heavily in many people's minds:
  • Hmm. Carbon-Fiber Travel guitar (Just to pick one out of the .. hat): "I need one of those!". Right.
  • "New Gizmo" factor doesn't generally last past the next "New Gizmo".
  • I too am subject to "New Gizmo" factor, and I'm now the owner of one. It doesn't mean I think its better than wood or chocolate.

• As a player, the main ingredient in a guitar choice is absolutely everything.
  • Most important: Feedback loop between my fingers and my ears. It determines, how well I play within my abilities.
  • Playability, sound: (both highly personal and likely part of the last statement)
  • Purpose: If I want a tough guitar to fit in an overhead, a carbon-Cargo makes sense.
  • If I want the best guitar for me, the field is wide open.
• Can I play it first?
  • If not, then for a travel guitar, perhaps it's ok. For an all-purpose guitar, not a chance.
  • I've got a big wood guitar that I love playing. It only required me to go to ~10 shops, and play ~150 guitars before I found it. Even so, I had to have a setup done, but there were basic qualities the guitar had that suited me, setup or not.
  • Since these things are all different, I want to play them and pick the one that suits me best as it was where I played it, and then I'm still going to tweak things when I get it home to further suit my tastes.

• Time:
  • I don't have enough time to spend an extraordinary amount a) looking for guitars, b) collecting them just to have and c) thinking about every new guitar development from carbon-fiber to sound-ports to fanned frets. I'm glad there will be new choices should I need a new guitar, but that's about it. As a guitarist, I spend my time playing.

For me: It isn't really about carbon vs. wood, nor is it about Taylor vs. Martin vs. {other names}, and not about which small guitar builder is "the best". We're lucky to have these choices, so get yourself a guitar you like and practice and play it and keep in mind that the guitar itself is perhaps not the larger part of the equation. (although you won't get far without one )

I have a lot of respect for the small shop builders (that may not be apparent from this reply), as well as many of the companies that produce instruments. Its just that when I go into a shop because I need a guitar, I don't pay any attention to brands or models, only how the guitars feel and sound to me.

[Acousticado]

Thanks to all for your insight thusfar. I'm finding this a very interesting discussion that is helpful in my decision-making.

One point about Rainsong vs. Composite Acoustics. I have not seen or played a Rainsong and have only played the CA Cargo which I now own. Reports on both brands are pretty good. I've been reading from those who have played both that CAs are better. I've also heard that Rainsongs and Composite Acoustics are quite different from each other. Maybe this is similar to the Martin vs. Taylor debate. In the end, both have their place. For those in this thread who posted that they tried Rainsong and didn't care for it compared to wood guitars, have you tried a CA?

Thanks again, folks!

[walkin_man]

Never had the chance to play a CA. If I see one, I will most definitely try it.

[leeasam]

http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...8&d=1200458311

forgive the sloppy playing. for some reson that day the Bm chord just was NOT coming together. I usually don`t have that issue was recorded in a hurry at a friends house to just get ac clip