Why hasn't CF Broken into the mainstream? - Page 3

HHP · #31 12-10-2013, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finger Stylish

"Sound" is completely subjective.

I have been playing acoustic guitars for 40 years, which include, Martin, Gibson, Grammer, Gurian, Ovation, Taylor, Rainsong.

I can say that the sound of my Rainsong DRHD is much more versatile, adjustable, sustainable, than any of my Wood trophy's. I have yet to find any "old traditionalist" that isn't pleasantly surprised when they play my Rainsong.

I wouldn't say the CA's are better than my Rosewood/spruce axes, just more sustain-ably versatile.
If I played these days for the coins, I would play my Rainsong.

Sound isn't subjective, but our evaluation and judgement about its applicable qualities to our music certainly is. You made a judgement that the Rainsong suits your playing, many others come to the opposite conclusion for themselves. I assume they judge on the same basis as those who select CF guitars and make just a reasonable a choice. No different than if someone prefers a Taylor over a Martin or vice versa.

Finger Stylish · #32 12-10-2013, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HHP

Sound isn't subjective, but our evaluation and judgement about its applicable qualities to our music certainly is. You made a judgement that the Rainsong suits your playing, many others come to the opposite conclusion for themselves. I assume they judge on the same basis as those who select CF guitars and make just a reasonable a choice. No different than if someone prefers a Taylor over a Martin or vice versa.

Sound is completely subjective based on what you've stated, "our evaluation and judgement"

Doubleneck · #33 12-10-2013, 08:31 AM

If sound wasn't subjective we wouldn't have any banjo players?

Captain Jim · #34 12-10-2013, 08:46 AM

I bought my first carbon fiber guitar this summer, a Rainsong Shorty SGFLE. I love the size, the sound, and the feel. I also appreciate the looks - this is the limited edition from Ted and staff at LA Guitar Sales.

This guitar has a beautiful voice, and adds another dimension. I considered CF because of our traveling lifestyle; we divide our time between a small house on the Gulf Coast and traveling by boat and RV.

I also have several Taylors - the 814ce with a tobacco sunburst finish, the curly maple binding... that guitar makes me smile every time I look at it (and play it, of course).

For those who talk about "the natural look of wood"... I have been a pretty avid woodworker over the years... the grain is all Mother Nature; bringing out that beauty, matching/combining woods, shaping it - this is all by the hands of man. There is beauty in a landscape, and there is beauty in architecture; many of us appreciate both. I feel the same way about a beautifully crafted guitar, wood or carbon fiber.

I picked the Shorty because of the size and ease of care. I keep it because it sounds and plays so nice!

Why aren't there more CF guitars "out there"? Even non-guitar people know Taylor, Martin, and Gibson... at one guitar shop I visited last spring, I had to spell "Rainsong" to the guitar salesman so he could look it up.

CF isn't inexpensive. Guitar shops stock what they believe they can sell. You can't just walk into most shops and find a selection of carbon fiber to allow a good comparison (LA Guitar Sales and MacNichol Guitars are the exception).

Playing out with the Rainsong, I have received only compliments about the sound. I have mentioned the fact that it is carbon fiber, and that brings some folks up afterwards to see it closer. I think the interest will continue to grow.

Captain Jim

mchalebk · #35 12-10-2013, 09:02 AM

I think those who feel cost isn't a factor are sorely mistaken. Yes, CF guitars don't cost any more than most high end wood guitars. However, most people aren't buying high end guitars. There are very few CF guitars that sell for under $1000 and none of them are full sized guitars. When you walk into a Guitar Center, how many acoustic guitars do they have that are under $1000? And a lot of them are darn fine guitars. Cost is a huge factor.

Availability is another big factor. If someone could walk into a Guitar Center and try out 20 different CF models from a half dozen manufacturers, you would have a lot more people finding one they like, thinking "hey, this sounds pretty darn good". And then the durability advantages would get them thinking "hey, I can leave this out all year long and never worry about humidity. And if the kids knock it off the stand, no big deal." You can bet CF guitars would be a lot more popular if they were available in every shop in large numbers.

One big disadvantage CF has is the difference in approach someone takes when playing one. When someone picks up a wood guitar, they generally give it a fair, unbiased tryout. They're certainly not thinking "is this made of viable materials?" With CF, they think "prove to me that you're worthy to be considered a guitar." The CF guitar is in the hole before they ever strum a chord. If the guitar then doesn't blow them away, there's a good chance they'll come away thinking it was way too expensive, sounded bad and was ugly. If they were able to approach them with a truly open mind and had a good selection to try, many would quickly appreciate that they can be as good as wood guitars without the disadvantages of wood construction.

carterjackson2 · #36 12-10-2013, 09:49 AM

When I have others play my old CA GX or dread I just do not tell them they are playing a CF guitar. I have never had one person play either one who could tell from the sound alone that they were not playing wood, including myself. The comments I see from folks who do not think the good CF instruments hold up acoustically with similar priced wood instruments tell me that people are not speaking from experience or are fooling themselves. I have lots of wood guitars and enjoy them a lot, but CF has lots of advantages and few disadvantages.

guitararmy · #37 12-10-2013, 09:49 AM

I've been waiting for Peavey to run more ads for the Composite Acoustics line...Maybe they could designate one of their Vyper amps as "carbon fiber" ready or make a model designed for the CA guitars.

BKENNA · #38 12-10-2013, 10:04 AM

Wood has a few thousand years on CF. People view their wooden instruments as “active” they talk about the sound improving over time, opening up etc… (there are even pieces of equipment and processes that allege to “open” the instrument up Where as the CF is vied as in-active, passive or as static if you will, that its sound is not going to change through time and that the sound it makes is due simply to physics, nothing in the actual material that makes it up is attributed to effecting its sound. (As far as I know?)

Personally while I currently don’t own one I could see them as being great to have to take on a camping trip, to leave at your mountain cabin etc….

They may have one advantage and that being, they are not as vulnerable to climate conditions as wooden instruments. I can easily think of several places that I sure wouldn’t want my wooden instruments being exposed to the elements, while the CF instruments would not be effected as easily if at all, particularly in different climates, i.e. cold, rain, humidity, heat, quick changing environments, etc…

buzzardwhiskey · #39 12-10-2013, 10:18 AM

This is coming from a long time CA GXi owner (my only guitar)... good wooden guitars sound better to me.

That said, the price point where they sound better is quite high (for me), and at that price point I derive less enjoyment when I play out because I'm always worried about the guitar.

jmat · #40 12-10-2013, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HHP

Maybe the simplest answer is the best, a lot of people don't like the way they sound.

I don't go to alot to a lot guitar stores anymore now that I live in northern Virginia. I did play a few CF at Make'n Music in Chicago and my experience aligned to the perspective from HHP.

That said I liked the CA better than the Rainsong when I checked them out, it was pre-Peavey, I don't remember seeing any Emerald in the stores at that time. What prevented me from taking a closer look was the limited ergonomic range of the necks, saddles and nut. I tend to gravitate to a deeper C shaped neck, 2 5/16 saddle and around 1 13/16 nut. There are plenty of wood options with this type configuration. Maybe they exist now in CF but I didn't see them at the time.

ac · #41 12-10-2013, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HHP

Maybe the simplest answer is the best, a lot of people don't like the way they sound.

Maybe. Maybe not. Simplistic answers are not always best, in fact seldom are, and this statement seemed to me to be a very simplistic answer.

"A lot of people say Gibson guitars sound dead."
"A lot of people say Taylors are too bright."
"A lot of people say fingerstyle is boring."
"A lot of people say country western music is for the uneducated."
"A lot of people say classical music is for bores and snobs."
. . . and on and on . . .

If I said that I do not like the sound of "Martins" or "Taylors"---how much broader or general a statement could I possibly make? I can only make it even more general and meaningless by adding "a lot of people say . . ."

In the end what makes "good" sound and "bad" sound is subjective, like it or not. I also have my own ideas (strong ideas) on what makes a good sounding guitar and what is or is not truly "good music". But I do recognize this is my own viewpoint and that it is subjective even though I'd love to convince everyone that my tastes in everything/everywhere are what they all should agree with and love also.

I've been living mostly in another country for some years now and I can tell you that "steel string acoustic guitars" are not considered the epitome of what is able to produce great sound here. They likely would not even be 10th on such a list. You could tell the local people until the end of eternity that "a lot of people" say it's a fact and how lovely they sound and so, therefore by extension, attempt to convince them that it must be true for them too. And . . . . . they would simply walk away amazed at your complete lack of any knowledge of what musical instruments do really sound good or not and what constitutes truly great music.

I'm not sure we really need to bolster our personal viewpoints and biases using such general phrases as "a lot of people". It takes away credibility from any poster and makes their subsequent posts on the same subject questionable, at best.

Sometimes simplistic statements are useful though. They are able to reveal personal biases quickly and that does have value for other readers.

Bowie · #42 12-10-2013, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ac

Maybe. Maybe not. Simplistic answers are not always best, in fact seldom are, and this statement seemed to me to be a very simplistic answer.

"A lot of people say Gibson guitars sound dead."
"A lot of people say Taylors are too bright."
"A lot of people say fingerstyle is boring."
"A lot of people say country western music is for the uneducated."
"A lot of people say classical music is for bores and snobs."
. . . and on and on . . .

If I said that I do not like the sound of "Martins" or "Taylors"---how much broader or general a statement could I possibly make? I can only make it even more general and meaningless by adding "a lot of people say . . ."

In the end what makes "good" sound and "bad" sound is subjective, like it or not. I also have my own ideas (strong ideas) on what makes a good sounding guitar and what is or is not truly "good music". But I do recognize this is my own viewpoint and that it is subjective even though I'd love to convince everyone that my tastes in everything/everywhere are what they all should agree with and love also.

I've been living mostly in another country for some years now and I can tell you that "steel string acoustic guitars" are not considered the epitome of what is able to produce great sound here. They likely would not even be 10th on such a list. You could tell the local people until the end of eternity that "a lot of people" say it's a fact and how lovely they sound and so, therefore by extension, attempt to convince them that it must be true for them too. And . . . . . they would simply walk away amazed at your complete lack of any knowledge of what musical instruments do really sound good or not and what constitutes truly great music.

I'm not sure we really need to bolster our personal viewpoints and biases using such general phrases as "a lot of people". It takes away credibility from any poster and makes their subsequent posts on the same subject questionable, at best.

Sometimes simplistic statements are useful though. They are able to reveal personal biases quickly and that does have value for other readers.

I think we can disagree with each other without attacking one's credibility, especially when we've provided no evidentiary statement against that opinion, just more meaningless statements like, "they would simply walk away amazed at your complete lack of any knowledge of what musical instruments do". Which is the type of thing you just criticized him for doing.

Acousticado · #43 12-10-2013, 01:52 PM

Here we go…another good discussion heading south………………...

martind42 · #44 12-10-2013, 02:03 PM

I don't know why you CF guys are in a stew, it's really yesterday's news. Here is the next big thing and guess what, it's made from, wait for it, wood.

http://www.gizmag.com/cellulose-nano...-kevlar/23959/

Doubleneck · #45 12-10-2013, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martind42

I don't know why you CF guys are in a stew, it's really yesterday's news. Here is the next big thing and guess what, it's made from, wait for it, wood.

http://www.gizmag.com/cellulose-nano...-kevlar/23959/

It very interesting stuff ironically it biggest enemy is water! They will probably have to seal it in some paint?

From a practical point of view the extra strength is wasted, carbon fiber now is stronger than a instrument really requires. If they produce it cheap that would be the ticket!

"But cellulose contains hydroxyl (OH) groups which protrude laterally along the cellulose molecule. These can form hydrogen bonds with water molecules, resulting in cellulose being hydrophilic (a drop of water will tend to spread across the cellulose surface). Given enough water, cellulose will become engorged with water, swelling to nearly double its dry volume.

Swelling introduces a large number of nano-defects in the cellulose structure. Although there is little swelling of a single CNC, water can penetrate into amorphous cellulose with ease, pushing apart the individual cellulose molecules in those regions. In addition, the bonds and interfaces between neighboring CNC will be disrupted, thereby significantly reducing the strength of any material reinforced with CNCs. To make matters worse, water can move easily over the surface/interfaces of the CNCs, thereby allowing water to penetrate far into a composite containing CNCs."