#76
|
|||
|
|||
This is an important point:
Quote:
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Charles,
I agree with the first quote. Not too impressed by the false analogy in the second quote though. Playing some arpeggios, a few random riffs and several common chords (offhandedly as I did play them) should be enough to judge the overall quality of the tone of these instruments. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It's true that wine tasters sometimes can't tell the difference, or that stock brokers sometimes perform no better than random. But analogies to wine and topics one knows little about have mostly entertainment value. A concert quality classical (besides everything Charles said) is meant to be LOUD, some concert guitarists have gone on record stating that this is in fact the most important property. To bring out the volume, you need correct classical technique and nails. Another important attribute is evenness of tone and volume across the strings as well as up the neck. To bring that out, you need to be able to play evenly, with correct classical technique and nails. Of course, for a guitar meant to be recorded only, the loudness is less important. This enables a studio to use a cheaper guitar, as long as it sounds good. Classical technique may matter less too, if the guitar is mainly used for textures or small riffs in pop music for example. Inside a tonal space with other instruments, eq and effects, it would be hard to hear the difference between a "good" and a "concert level guitar". So if the Cremona does what you need, it's win-win. The specific requirements of concert level classical guitarists are not an issue here. Thanks again for your effort.
__________________
Lowden S25c - The Tool "Flying D" prototype - Heritage Eagle - MJT Thinline Telecaster - Fender CS 56 Stratocaster |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#82
|
||||
|
||||
Edit: Duplicate post.
Last edited by DenverSteve; 03-24-2016 at 07:52 AM. |
#83
|
||||
|
||||
I listened, made my decision and looked as the reveal had already happened. Consequently my thought on it is irrelevant. I will say however that I find far less difference between the sound of classical guitars separated by a few hundred dollars than steel-string guitars. Construction, playability... differences certainly but, to me, the tonal difference between nylon stringed instruments seems far more consistent between builders and prices than the difference between Martin and Taylor or Taylor and Gibson for example.
Agreed. |
#84
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There is no question that there is a point of diminishing return, beyond which it isn't the sound quality that is being paid for: it is often the "story" that goes with the guitar, the brand name/luthier or its appearance. Trying to determine that point of diminishing return is a moving target since there are "fuzzy", difficult-to-quantify, factors that go into that assessment. One can attempt to quantify those difficult-to-quantify factors using adequately large samples and then use statistics to get aggregate-type results. Regardless, in the end, a large part of it is still personal preference based upon one's likes and dislikes and experiences. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As the saying goes....different strokes for different folks.... |
|
Tags |
blind, classical, guitars, test |
Thread Tools | |
|