Expensive Acoustics. A waste of money? Or not.

jellyroll

DavidR said:

Interesting stuff and I accept the point that if you can't differentiate between acoustics then there's little point in forking out megadosh.

I think the point I am making though is that, although there used to be quite a big gap between the average and the superb, now, in 2022, that gap has narrowed.

Blindfold me and play me a Guild D140 (£594), a Yamaha FG5 (£1,149) and a Martin D18 (£2,499) and ask me to pick out the Martin and I would struggle.

So might a lot of people I suspect.

Agreed. But I’m a brand snob, so I’d still buy the Martin  

bertie

DavidR said:

Blindfold me and play me a Guild D140 (£594), a Yamaha FG5 (£1,149) and a Martin D18 (£2,499) and ask me to pick out the Martin and I would struggle.

 

its not all about what it sounds like to the person not playing it.

But I do get the "point"  and its something I often relate to when people talk about any "audio" experience,  an amp,  CD, hi-fi, speakers, headphones   yadda yadda  - there comes a point in the "ability to differentiate/appreciate" that is different for everyone,  ie my ears cant "appreciate" expensive hi-fi or vinyl  -  (which TBH is lucky !)

DavidR

jellyroll said:

DavidR said:

Interesting stuff and I accept the point that if you can't differentiate between acoustics then there's little point in forking out megadosh.

I think the point I am making though is that, although there used to be quite a big gap between the average and the superb, now, in 2022, that gap has narrowed.

Blindfold me and play me a Guild D140 (£594), a Yamaha FG5 (£1,149) and a Martin D18 (£2,499) and ask me to pick out the Martin and I would struggle.

So might a lot of people I suspect.

Agreed. But I’m a brand snob, so I’d still buy the Martin  

:-)

Tannin

The reason this discussion is so confusing is that we are actually talking about two different things - price and quality. They are NOT equal!

In particular, some of the famous-name US makers are now charging around $6000 (say £3500) for their standard models.

Not their cheap models, the standard ones on which their name is made. I'm not going to mention any names here, but their initials are Gibson and Martin, and examples are D-18, J-45, OM-28, and so on. I've played quite a few examples of those models, and others like them and they are excellent guitars, but if you think they are any better that the standard, mainstream models of a dozen other manufacturers you've got rocks in your head. (You may or may not like them better - matter of personal taste - but on any objective level they are no better than many a Tamakine, Furch, Maton,  Lakewood and are, in short, overpriced to buggery.)

So let's forget the price. Price means nothing. Here in Oz you can but first-class, all-solid, all-sustainable timbers, first-world-manufactured guitar good enough for anyone sensible person's needs for $1229 (£690.)  That is a Maton S60. No frills at that price, but it's a bloody good guitar you could play a gig with in any venue. And no crappy cheapskate tricks like not even binding the body to protect it against dings. (Cough, cough, Gibson.) Now you don't get that model in in the UK (well you do, but you pay serious money for it) but you have local alternatives of apparently similar value. 

Quality is a non-negotiable. 

Price beyond let's say £1000 is something you pay only if you want to. And if you do want to, then sure! There are some utterly lovely guitars, and if you've got the money, bloody spend it! But you don't have to.

Benm39

malcolmkindness said:

"When it comes to acoustic guitars costing about £1,500 and upwards owners are definitely expecting a fully "hand built" guitar."

I really can't see how you can expect a "hand built" guitar for this price.
It is generally agreed that it takes an experienced builder about 100 hours to make a guitar, before you even consider the cost of the materials, then there is VAT and a case. In my experience a quality hand made guitar is impossible under £3000.

Brook are extremely good value, at around £2600 .

bertie

Benm39 said:

Brook are extremely good value, at around £2600 .

even better at £1700............................


(that was 2008 mind you  LOL  ) 

jellyroll

I remember Jeremy Clarkson talking about a particular Porsche (a Boxter, I think) saying that it was great,  fantastic, brilliant. But he wouldn’t get one because if he pulled up at the lights and the car next to him was a Carrera (or something, I’m not well up on Porsche models) he’d feel like he cheaped out. 

I think of guitars a bit like that. Especially Gibsons. Yes, you can buy a great Mahogany sloped dread for a grand and it will sound fine and play well. But when the next guy shows up with a Gibson J-45, you’ll hear that yours isn’t a Gibson. 

Tannin

I have 7 guitars. All of them are better than a J-45. They sound better. They play better. 3 or 4 of the 7 cost less. 

 And they don't have that bloody awful black paint!

malcolmkindness

DavidR said:

Interesting stuff and I accept the point that if you can't differentiate between acoustics then there's little point in forking out megadosh.

I think the point I am making though is that, although there used to be quite a big gap between the average and the superb, now, in 2022, that gap has narrowed, because of competition upping commercial standards. Everywhere.

Blindfold me and play me a Guild D140 (£594), a Yamaha FG5 (£1,149) and a Martin D18 (£2,499) and ask me to pick out the Martin and I would struggle. Ask me to pick out the Guild and I would struggle too I suspect. These 3 just given as a 'for example'.

We're spoilt for choice. That's great. I just wonder how many players are paying over the odds for an instrument not hugely different to one they could find at a more budget price point.

You are absolutely correct that the difference between a budget guitar and an expensive one today is much less than it used to be. I'm in my 70's now and my two Recording King guitars are excellent instruments considering what they cost.
When I was a teenager a budget guitar was made of plywood and very hard to play, and the high quality American made guitars were hard to find and prohibitively expensive. 

RocknRollDave

Diminishing returns, innit.

If you compare an £80 guitar to an £800 guitar, you could argue with some conviction the latter is ten times better.
compare £800 with £8000, however, and that ratio will be massively reduced.

In real terms, paying twice or three times the price of a decent upper-mid-priced guitar will not usually get you a guitar that is 200-300% better. But, are you happy spending 200% more for a, say, 25% increase in perceived quality? Only you can answer that.

CMW335

I have owned several high end modern and vintage acoustics and currently settled with a 1958 Gibson J-200. I have recently received some very lucrative offers for it from a couple of different people who tried it out when trading other guitars and I could not bring myself to part with it. I do think it’s an individual preference thing but of few the people who have played this J-200 2 of them have offered a lot of money and I turn have turned that down because of all the guitars I have owned I could not replace it with one of those without spending the same amount on a banner J45 or 60s D-28. 

Dave_Mc

jellyroll said:

I remember Jeremy Clarkson talking about a particular Porsche (a Boxter, I think) saying that it was great,  fantastic, brilliant. But he wouldn’t get one because if he pulled up at the lights and the car next to him was a Carrera (or something, I’m not well up on Porsche models) he’d feel like he cheaped out. 

I think of guitars a bit like that. Especially Gibsons. Yes, you can buy a great Mahogany sloped dread for a grand and it will sound fine and play well. But when the next guy shows up with a Gibson J-45, you’ll hear that yours isn’t a Gibson. 

The problem with that is I've tried two J45s. One was great (I probably should've bought it). One was middling at best- at half the price I'm not sure I'd have wanted it!

Going back to the original question- that's really one of the big questions (alongside "How do I improve?") which plagues guitar, and probably all hobbies. I'm not sure there's a straight answer to it, as it'll be different for different people. A lot of good points have been made so far. I haven't worked out the answer yet either (and I'm not sure I ever will!)- plus I'm more of an electric guitar player anyway, so bear that in mind.

Trying to keep this as short as possible:

- More expensive guitars are usually better. On average. But not always. And some stuff is better value than others. And each guitar is different so you could get a particularly good or particularly bad example. I've tried expensive guitars which I didn't think were worth it- not that I couldn't hear a difference between it  and a cheaper one, I mean I could, the cheaper one was better! But I've also tried expensive guitars which were worth it. Ditto with cheaper ones.

- I think you can do more to an electric guitar than an acoustic to improve the tone. I'm not saying that putting high-end pickups into a Harley Benton will turn it into a CS Gibson-beater, but it will get it a lot closer than it should, and a lot closer than the price difference! You can't really do this with acoustics (at least if you're talking about the acoustic tone).

- A lot of it depends on the tone you're after. If you're after something very specific, there might not be a "better value" version available.

- Cheaper guitars are better than ever. More expensive guitars seem to be getting more expensive all the time. That's not to say they're not worth it, but the expensive guitars are getting less worth it all the time. But there's still something about a good expensive guitar...

- A lot of it depends on how much money you have etc..

- The setup really affects how nice the guitar seems as well. It can be hard to know if it's a worse guitar, or just a guitar with a worse setup.

Dave_Mc

bertie said:

with acoustics,  99% of the time,  you most definitely get what you pay for

you dont "need" to spend north of £3k  -  something eastern European or Eastman will easily get you into "yes I can really notice the difference"  land

I'm not that well up on Eastman, but agreed with the Eastern European thing- Furch and Dowina (there may be others I haven't tried!) are really good for what they cost. They feel like serious bits of kit. I've never tried any of the super-expensive boutique acoustics, so maybe they don't compare to them, but compared to the big names even at £2-£3k, they hold their own. EDIT: Just to clarify, I mean the cheaper all-solid Furches and Dowinas at the £600-£1000 mark can hang with those more expensive acoustics. The more expensive ones (which I have no experience with) are presumably even better!

Soupman

I agree with @malcolmkindness - low to middle end guitars have been upping their quality over the last couple of decades - increased competition.

In a sense, high end guitar quality has nowhere to go! Yes, different wood combinations etc - the sound can be altered to taste, but the instrument is as good as it's going to get.

Dave_Mc

Ahh I forgot "diminishing returns". That's also a pretty important point with the dearer stuff.

malcolmkindness

Benm39 said:

malcolmkindness said:

"When it comes to acoustic guitars costing about £1,500 and upwards owners are definitely expecting a fully "hand built" guitar."

I really can't see how you can expect a "hand built" guitar for this price.
It is generally agreed that it takes an experienced builder about 100 hours to make a guitar, before you even consider the cost of the materials, then there is VAT and a case. In my experience a quality hand made guitar is impossible under £3000.

Brook are extremely good value, at around £2600 .

Yes they are. Being in Ireland, when I said "impossible under £3000" I should have said euro, which is about the same.

Lewy

Acoustic guitar is a funny old business because one person's diminishing returns is another person's table stakes depending on what, how and where they play. It's not as simple as just saying "you don't need to spend more than £1000". Maybe you don't for a lot of uses but maybe you do for some niche ones. Let's take traditional bluegrass as an example. Fully acoustic, played with the ensemble around one or two mics. It's very rare you see the guitar player in that context playing anything other than a high end dreadnought. And these aren't dentists playing this music.... This is because there is a difference between the acoustic projection you get from a really really good dreadnought and a more standard one and that can be the difference between having an ok time and a great time as the player, and the rest of the ensemble. That's fundamental to that player, it's not "the last 2%" as people sometimes describe it. Worth noting that if you were in Bill Monroe's band, you played his pre-war Martin whether you wanted to or not, because that's what he wanted to hear!

boogieman

You don’t need to spend big money, but often it’s just a personal choice. I’d always wanted a Martin because I love the way they sound. I’ve had several very good sounding and playable acoustics but only a proper Martin would scratch the itch. Was it worth it? Absolutely. It’s the sound I’ve always had bookmarked in my head as what a nice acoustic should sound like. 

You don’t have to be a millionaire to own a decent acoustic if you go for a big brand name from someone like Peach; zero% finance is your friend here. I put down a deposit I could afford, the balance was £50 a month and I owned if after 24 months. Obviously that’s more difficult if you opt for a more niche brand 

mgaw

IME 2nd hand Santacruz is hard to beat

Tannin

Lewy said:

 It's not as simple as just saying "you don't need to spend more than £1000". Maybe you don't for a lot of uses but maybe you do for some niche ones. Let's take traditional bluegrass as an example. Fully acoustic, played with the ensemble around one or two mics. It's very rare you see the guitar player in that context playing anything other than a high end dreadnought.

 Just so. Other examples are concert classical (where you have to fill a whole hall with the voice of one guitar, or even be heard against an orchestra) and flamenco (much the same applies). 

In all three of these genres (each one is far too big and mainstream to be called a "niche"), acoustic volume is critical, and you can't sacrifice tone or playing qualities to get it. Result: it costs a lot of money for a suitable instrument.

However, in nearly every other niche or genre, acoustic volume really isn't an issue - either "not an issue within reason" for some things, or "not an issue at all" for many others. But, stupidly, we guitarists generally allow ourselves to be sucked in by the bluegrass model and talk about "more volume" as if it was the Holy Grail. And it's not. In the era of electronic amplification, most of the time, acoustic volume isn't even important, let alone critical. Tone, playability, depth, richness, subtlety, flexibility - all of these matter more.

I'll go further: many "really good" guitars are quite restrictive. There is a special magic in a really responsive guitar, particularly for fingerstylists, on the other hand,  for many, many tasks, a super-responsive guitar is a pain in the arse. You get a much better, more balanced sound from a guitar with some natural compression. Some people (count me among them) even enjoy playing a 12-string strung as a 6 because the extra-heavy bracing often results in a delightfully even sound otherwise unapproachable without a studio's electronic trickery.

It's all about horses for courses. Yes, the bluegrass people have a valid point. But don't let that point obscure the many other virtues a guitar can have.