Tone isn't important

Tannin

Well, not half as important as we mostly think. 

For acoustic players, it is conventional to think of great tone as the Holy Grail. This is why we search out obscure tropical timbers and ponder scale length and body shape, and spend vast sums of money looking for the magic guitar with the perfect tone to die for.

And you know what? It's bullshit. Well, for the most part it's bullshit. 

Tone isn't important. Yes, good tone is a necessary starting point, just as having the guitar in tune is a basic essential, but it's only the starting point. 

What REALLY sorts the sheep from the goats isn't quality of tone (once you get over, say, the £1000 mark, you can expect a good basic tone as of right), it is consistency of tone, it is the way the tone transitions from one area to another - from bass strings to treble strings, from open strings to up the neck, from gentle fingerpicking of single note runs to two and three note chords to full-on strumming.

It's not "perfect tone" that makes a great acoustic guitar, it is the way the guitar transitions from one sort of tone to another sort. All guitars have many different tones. What sets the best ones apart is the way the different tones it makes blend beautifully from one to another, leaving you, the musician, free to think about what you want to play, and not having to worry about how to force the instrument to do what you want.

Soupman

Yep, and what makes a good tone is different for most people.
Have you found it yet, 8 guitars on...? Lol.

DavidR

Don’t agree really. Suspect Mr. Chai being a teeny bit provocative here. :-)

 I have bought guitars on the tone alone. I find most guitars playable, albeit variably, and looks are important, but subsidiary. 

Tone first for me every time. 

Gassage

Tone was one of the founders of this forum so he's super important.

Lestratcaster

Tone comes from the player's hands.

Soupman

What? Mr.T being provocative? Surely not! 

Most people seem to like tones from Martins, Gibson's and so on, but some seem to dislike 'modern sounding' like Taylors.
People search out their own tone favourites, probably dictated by the type of material they play, whether they use a pick, fingers etc.

Also we've all seen wonderful players that can make any old dog of a guitar sing. (That's not me, by the way!).
 
 

MartinB

In some ways I can see it - there are some very high end instruments that sound huge, overtones everywhere, can captivate you with a single chord, yet that turns out not to be a better thing in every musical context. I'm sure we can all think of musicians who've moved to much swankier instruments as their careers have gone on, and don't always sound better than they did in the old days on a fairly standard factory instrument. Sometimes a fairly plain, simple sound gets the music across with fewer distractions.

bugileman

For me tone is everything, alongside playability. When I pickup some of my oldies and just strum a chord I know that's what hits the mark for me...

Yes everything has to interact, even balance etc. Every guitar is different and that's the beauty of tone

DavidR

Lestratcaster said:

Tone comes from the player's hands.

Partly yes. I agree. 

SlopeSoarer

Tannin said:

Well, not half as important as we mostly think. 

For acoustic players, it is conventional to think of great tone as the Holy Grail. This is why we search out obscure tropical timbers and ponder scale length and body shape, and spend vast sums of money looking for the magic guitar with the perfect tone to die for.

And you know what? It's bullshit. Well, for the most part it's bullshit. 

Tone isn't important. Yes, good tone is a necessary starting point, just as having the guitar in tune is a basic essential, but it's only the starting point. 

What REALLY sorts the sheep from the goats isn't quality of tone (once you get over, say, the £1000 mark, you can expect a good basic tone as of right), it is consistency of tone, it is the way the tone transitions from one area to another - from bass strings to treble strings, from open strings to up the neck, from gentle fingerpicking of single note runs to two and three note chords to full-on strumming.

It's not "perfect tone" that makes a great acoustic guitar, it is the way the guitar transitions from one sort of tone to another sort. All guitars have many different tones. What sets the best ones apart is the way the different tones it makes blend beautifully from one to another, leaving you, the musician, free to think about what you want to play, and not having to worry about how to force the instrument to do what you want.

Being a thick lad from Bolton, it still sounds to me like you think tone is important!

Jez6345789

For any given acoustic situation the player is the biggest factor affecting tone. Woods materials etc matter far less outside of forum navel gazing. The so called way an instrument transitions across the frequencies is again a matter of taste and an advanced player who knows the instrument can adapt their technique to the instruments dynamic range and affect the tonal presentation.

So for me it’s not the perfect tone it’s the perfect player.

theatreanchor

I don’t think of tone for acoustic players. I think of technique. Tone is incidental. 

maltingsaudio

IMHO, when thinking of tone from an acoustic, we tend to hear it from an amplified point of view ie in the audience, ergo it’s the processors the signal runs through not the guitar .

stickyfiddle

Tone without context is irrelevant. I can make almost anything sound good by changing what the context I use it in. 

I agree with acoustics that balance is at least as important as "tone". I think that sort of consistency and control is also a big part of getting an instrument that records well. 

DavidR

Why then would anyone pay £3-4K+ for a guitar? What are they paying for? A good looking acoustic with good playability and good balance can be had for much less. And, in 2024, very few are likely to come apart in your hands.

Non comprendo.

Whilst we're on it - I do agree that good classical players have the ability to extract lovely sounds from seemingly any student instrument, but acoustics? Personally, I'm not sure that's true to the same extent. Many acoustics sound lovely but many sound lumpen and flat - in anyone's hands. Personal opinions obviously.

Tannin

@DavidR, you are asking the right question. The point here is that most £1000 guitars are capable of producing an outstanding tone - as good, or very nearly as good as a first-class £4000 guitar. 

However, the £1000 guitar can't produce great tone in anything like the variety of circumstances that the £4000 one does. It doesn't transition from one sound to another with anything like the same aplomb. 

It's like the difference between a talented kid on the cricket field and a genuine champion. The kid can knock up a nice 50 or even a century no worries ..... if the pitch suits him, if the bowling is to his taste, if a dozen other factors go his way. 

The champion can get runs even when the ball is flying off a good length or turning square, even when the bowlers are top-flight and the weather is unhelpful. 

Same with guitars. Most £1000 guitars can play at least a few things pretty well and sound good within a very limited ambit, but although they can produce a great sound at their best, the gap between their best and their worst is large. 

What I'm saying here is that it is not "great tone" that makes a great guitar. Most half-decent guitars can produce a great tone some of the time. It's the ability to produce great tones in many different ways, and the poise to meld these ways such that the performance is continuous as it transitions from one sort of sound to another.

stickyfiddle

Tannin said:

@DavidR, you are asking the right question. The point here is that most £1000 guitars are capable of producing an outstanding tone - as good, or very nearly as good as a first-class £4000 guitar. 

However, the £1000 guitar can't produce great tone in anything like the variety of circumstances that the £4000 one does. It doesn't transition from one sound to another with anything like the same aplomb. 

It's like the difference between a talented kid on the cricket field and a genuine champion. The kid can knock up a nice 50 or even a century no worries ..... if the pitch suits him, if the bowling is to his taste, if a dozen other factors go his way. 

The champion can get runs even when the ball is flying off a good length or turning square, even when the bowlers are top-flight and the weather is unhelpful. 

Same with guitars. Most £1000 guitars can play at least a few things pretty well and sound good within a very limited ambit, but although they can produce a great sound at their best, the gap between their best and their worst is large. 

What I'm saying here is that it is not "great tone" that makes a great guitar. Most half-decent guitars can produce a great tone some of the time. It's the ability to produce great tones in many different ways, and the poise to meld these ways such that the performance is continuous as it transitions from one sort of sound to another.

This is it 100%. My Bourgeois is the best strummer I've ever played, but also the best fingerpicker, consistently extremely loud when you hit it hard without farting out or sounding boxy but is also the sweetest thing you'll ever hear when played as lightly as possible. 

I've never played a modern Martin that can do all of that. 

MartinB

"Tone isn't important, you have to be playing a 4K acoustic to truly understand that"

Have I got that right?

bugileman

MartinB said:

"Tone isn't important, you have to be playing a 4K acoustic to truly understand that"

Have I got that right?

That is what I'm led to believe from the comment above. If so I think this chap has been unlucky or is never satisfied.....no offence intended 

menamestom

I was thinking the other day how much of the music I like was actually made on cheaper instruments with tonal 'limitations'.
So in the spitrit of that, really anything will do, as long as it is playable.

But now we actually have expensive instruments made to accuratly copy the cheaper instruments, with their limitations.
And those cheap instruments are now incredibly expensive instruments.  So I woudn't say a £4k instrument is necessarily something that sounds good in all situations.

Soupman

@menamestom said:

But now we actually have expensive instruments made to accuratly copy the cheaper instruments, with their limitations.

Sorry Tom, I don't follow you there?