Martin versus McPherson

[John5]

Wow, starts at 3:30, which did you enjoy more? Should use headphones to listen to get the best quality:

[Goodallboy]

Won’t work for me......

[John5]

Updated. At first I thought the McPherson sounded great when he first lightly strummed it, but when the guy started to dig in, the Martin was superior in this respect.

[ManyMartinMan]

The McPherson was very nice but the D-28 sounded better throughout the comparison to my. Additionally, even if the McPherson was way better - I would never play a guitar weighing 12.8 lbs. (5.84 Kg.). The McPherson cost 4X the D-28 and weighs more than 2X the weight. So, even if I liked both equally, the Martin wins in all other categories for me.

[M Hayden]

As I recall, the McPhersons do not have truss rods. That’s a deal killer; I like to adjust playability and use barely any relief, and you won’t get that w/o the adjustable rod.

[Dickey Clapton]

McPherson s cantilevered neck does not need an adjustable truss rod

[John5]

Originally Posted by Dickey Clapton

McPherson s cantilevered neck does not need an adjustable truss rod

So are you saying if a neck is cantilevered, it does not need an adjustable truss rod due to the fact that it is cantilevered; or are you saying their particular neck, which just happens to be a cantilevered neck, does not need an adjustable truss rod?

[nickv6]

Thanks for posting, interesting video.
I must admit that the McPherson sounded better to me in every way. Clearer, more personality, clarity in bass lines behind the treble. Just better. But, that huge neck joint? Is all that weight in the neck? I don't think I could cope with it....maybe if I had a real studio and used the McPherson for recording.......
Nick

[Dbone]

Can someone explain to me why these McPherson guitars are so expensive? I watched this video when it first came out and it made me realize that there are just some things I’m probably not meant to understand in the guitar world.

It can’t be sound quality, according to that video at least, and it can’t be build quality because I know you don’t have to spend that kind of money to get impeccable build quality.

[nickv6]

Originally Posted by Dbone

Can someone explain to me why these McPherson guitars are so expensive? I watched this video when it first came out and it made me realize that there are just some things I’m probably not meant to understand in the guitar world.

It can’t be sound quality, according to that video at least, and it can’t be build quality because I know you don’t have to spend that kind of money to get impeccable build quality.

They are priced by the ounce
Nick

[Dbone]

Originally Posted by nickv6

They are priced by the ounce
Nick

Lol

Perhaps that is it...gotta be

[mercy]

Strumming as in the video its Martin, but fingerstyle, not in the video its Mc I think from other things Ive heard. But the Mc is high on the ugly meter, weight, cost. How do they stay in business?
PS Im not a Martin fan but there are some things it does well.

[martingitdave]

I've played both the McPherson 4.5 and 5.0 models and I own a number of D-28s. Since I'm a recent owner of the McPherson Sable carbon fiber, I'll offer what I can in terms of my research.

First, the neck has a carbon fiber reinforcement system. It doesn't need an adjustable truss rod. The carbon fiber is something like 100 times stiffer than steel, and there's more of it. Their necks do not move, period.

The entire design of the McPherson guitar is a departure from Martin. Matt learned that the sound board area directly under the strings is the most important for resonant sound production. That's where everyone else has a hole. Moreover, that area is improved by lifting the fingerboard extension away, although, I wonder by how much?

His bracing design is very different from every other builder.

Lastly, because the soundhole is offset, what the player hears is a little different than what the audience hears, I surmise from my own experience. It's like tilting a Martin guitar's soundhole towards your ears when you are playing. You get a richer experience. Except with the McPherson, you get that all the time.

If I had the money to spend, I would by a McPherson 5.0 MG Adirondack and Rosewood today and make it my primary guitar. Although I would not sell my Martins, I might not play them as often.

I'm so much enjoying the McPherson experience that my Martins are getting less play, and that's with the Carbon fiber one! I suspect the wooden model would get played more exclusively.

That video doesn't do it much justice. You'd need to play one in person. Of course what we like to hear in guitars is totally subjective. It might simply be that my taste and Matt McPherson's are similar.

[Goodallboy]

Videos are a poor way to judge a guitar, but that’s not accepted by many, so I’ll move along.

I’ve played a few McPherson’s and they were among the finest instruments I’ve ever played. Nothing short of incredible, one Spruce/Bubinga 5.0 still haunts my memory.

This vs thing isn’t a game I play so I’ll leave it at that.

[M Hayden]

Originally Posted by John5

So are you saying if a neck is cantilevered, it does not need an adjustable truss rod due to the fact that it is cantilevered; or are you saying their particular neck, which just happens to be a cantilevered neck, does not need an adjustable truss rod?

Seems to be the former, which sidesteps the relief issues I mentioned. Their necks may be *stable*, but the relief along their length is not adjustable, and that’s an issue for me. I like very little relief, and many factory setups don’t have enough.

When I tried one, there was more relief than I liked, and I asked about adjustability, only to be told that the necks don’t require it. I’m surprised at that as a design choice in an instrument costing that much - it seems to assume one perfect setting for everyone, which, given the ongoing discussions of setup on this forum, is clearly not the case.