Evaluating guitars etc.

[deeaa]

I dunno about you guys, but I'm kinda sick and tired of gear reviews that really have no negative things to say at all. Am I just overly negative? How can people not see anything bad in, say a Les Paul or a Strat or whatever it is they review.

I can dig that any guitar can sound great etc. but, ultimately, there's so many things that could be better on any guitar, even the best strat or LP ever made...or is it just that people don't care? Is it that they just have accepted the flaws to be the nature of the beast, and only work with the guitar in the ways it allows, instead of wanting stuff that is hard or impossible on a guitar.

Reminds me of stuff like Harley Davidson vs. Japanese superbikes. People argue heatedly which is better, while both have huge flaws to them anyway. They are for different uses after all.

IMO the best guitar would have...like a soft, squeezable neck for instance...it'd be full and sturdy and thick for rhytm, but sense you are going for a lead and thin down on the fly. It would have a scale length that could be changed on the fly. It would have no heel whatsoever and the strap button would be on a horn well over the neck but somehow you should be able to put your hand through it, it would have to be some kind of fog basically...

OK that's exaggeration, but I wonder if anyone catches my drift here. It just seems to me whatever guitar someone owns, it's always the best one in the universe. And when that person finds a better one, only then the old one becomes flawed again. They always sound perfect and with perfect woods and acoustic tones, no matter what effin' indian scrap wood they might really be laminated with like Epiphones are...is that simpy that people really have no experience of anything better, or is it that the materials really have next to nothing to with how the guitar sounds?

I have put together a lot of guitars that do away with a lot of issues I have with the original designs, but of course those also have flaws of their own as well, far from perfect.

 

[deeaa]

Seriously, things I'd like to see in a perfect guitar:

- Stainless frets
- 1/3rd carbon fibre neck
- Neck thru
- Simple 3-position switch over the fretboard
- 4-5 microphones to be possible to use in sets of two with another 3-pos. switch (dunno how they'd fit in the body though)
- Asymmetrical V neck that goes from thick to thin
- Different scale lenght for low and high strings
- Slightly fanned frets
- tilt construction all the way
- locking tuners but no locks
- A floyd system that would lock into place completely sturdily when not in use
- Roller saddles and nut, but with bone rollers and without any play to micrometre level
- insanely beautiful 1-color sunburst flame maple top with thick bindings on the edges both on body and neck
- regardless of previous, heavily contoured shapes
- Tone braced semi-hollow and carved out structure with sturdy mahogany structures
- Weighing just a few kilos
- Has to look great, be small enough but not tiny, have strat shapes but have the aggression of an Explorer anyway
- Have completely open access to ALL frets
- have 24 frets minumum
- Have switchable passive / active pickups
- Have active EQ inbuilt
- Have a booster in-built
- Have a switch for direct-from pickup to amp
- Have a possibility to use mic switches and volume via wireless MIDI control from the pedalboard or by mixer
- Have a wireless system
- Have an in-built tuner or robotic tuning BUT no added weight

Ok, so when you start having all that in a guitar, THEN I'd be ready to give it a truly rave review.

 

[syo]

I can dig that any guitar can sound great etc. but, ultimately, there's so many things that could be better on any guitar, even the best strat or LP ever made...or is it just that people don't care?

No, I think people care but only to a point.

Is it that they just have accepted the flaws to be the nature of the beast, and only work with the guitar in the ways it allows, instead of wanting stuff that is hard or impossible on a guitar.

Pretty much yes, I think. Although most don't see them as flaws. They are instead seen as part of the "character" of the instrument. Personally, I am not sure that this is necessarily incorrect.

OK that's exaggeration, but I wonder if anyone catches my drift here. It just seems to me whatever guitar someone owns, it's always the best one in the universe. And when that person finds a better one, only then the old one becomes flawed again.

Well one of my favorite guitars is the second one I ever bought. It has the least "flaws" (if you will) than any of the dozen or so guitars I've bought since (unless you count my Hell Guitars of course...) :AOK

...is that simpy that people really have no experience of anything better, or is it that the materials really have next to nothing to with how the guitar sounds?

For the majority, neither I think. I believe that most people who buy guitars do so more for the love of the instrument than for a true player's need for something better. Guitars (like all instruments) sound their best when you know how to play them. Materials matter most when they're in the right hands.

Ok, so when you start having all that in a guitar, THEN I'd be ready to give it a truly rave review.

Wow Dee, I was thinking of sending you a guitar to review but now I'm afraid the review might not go so well.:spank

Interesting topic and you make some good points. I think generally the "review process" is largely an "approval process" for most gear when it comes to magazines and other media. When it's personal reviews I think things are usually led by fanboys and their antagonists. But after all a guitar is basically the same. Some made cheaply others sparing no expense. Some well built and others unplayable. But in the end most people are not looking for a guitar to bake their bread. They just want it to be more or less a well functioning instrument, in the traditional sense. They also want it to fit their sense of style both functionally and aesthetically.

 

[deeaa]

Well, the post was indeed meant to spark some discussion on the subject. I'd really like to see something totally different as well - I kind of feel that the guitar world would benefit from some real crazy innovations.

But, I suppose it IS the kind of a thing that is akin to digging, say, classic cars. A 50's Chevy sure isn't the best car money can buy but boy, does everybody want one.

For all its faults, I did love my LP for instance. I'd love to get another LP some day. It was a great guitar, and I'd review it quite favorably even today. Sure, I could think of ways to get the design more usable and better in some ways, but by and large, that's usually either impossible or at least something people do not want.

I'm intrigued about the guitar models, though. Your design of the Bender is one I really like for instance; it is kinda like an LP but still something quite different. In fact the only thing I would change about it is I'd prefer the switch on the upper horn. But, I have several guitars with switches down by the knobs and that works fine too. What interests me most is the birth of the superstrat, and the apparenly very small deviations within the genre. It is ultimately the fourth big one. I mean, think of it: Les Paul, Strat, Tele, Superstrat...every word conjures an image of some guitar...and you just know what it entails.

Your guitars break the mold somewhat, the bender the most. It's more like an LP without the bulk...it could be like SG but I see it as more like an LP. But the point is, to me it seems like a new design more than the number 2 for instance.

I dunno if any of this makes sense, I should get to bed, had a few too many beers already checking out...

 

[mapka]

I was watching a TV program last night about a local luthier who builds violins and mandolins, but was also building a custom archtop acoustic for a customer. He was telling how he selects the woods, how the grain, glue, shape, and thickness effect tonal quality. He was carving the neck specific to that customer. That said I am sure this instrument is well out of the range of most of us. I think it would also be safe to say that we all would love to own a custom made instrument like this. I cannot afford this and at this time would find it hard to afford a Gibson L5 so if I want an instrument like that I would need to go with an Epiphone. Yes it may not have the tone or resonance of the first two but if it feels good to play and can approximate the sound I am looking for, why would I not tell everyone how much I like it? Especially if I tried several instruments in the same price range and style and decided on that one

 

[marnold]

Am I just overly negative?

Yes. Close thread.

But seriously, folks, there's a lot of issues here. Everyone has different tastes. What might be awful for someone would be great for someone else. There's also the obligatory honeymoon period where everything seems to be wonderful. The warts don't come out for a while. Everybody's ears are different too. One person's "bright" is another person's "shrill." I do not have the most education guitar-criticism skills in the world and I'm not sure I want to. If I would only be happy with a multi-thousand dollar guitar I'd never play in the first place. There's also the law of diminishing returns. Sure that really expensive guitar is better, but is the increase in quality in line with the increase in price? In a perfect world, that shouldn't matter but obviously the situation is far from perfect.

BTW, unless you build it yourself (and invent a few ways to get around those pesky physics) you are probably never going to have your perfect guitar.

 

[Tibernius]

I think one of things people seem to forget with professional guitar reviews is it's a review of the product, not the style. As such, you can't really complain about the lack of a second cutaway on a Les Paul style guitar, for example. Every kind of guitar has certain characteristics, and unless it's a completely new design it's going to have some of the flaws inherent with the characteristics of the guitar it's based on.

You also can't really comment on certain things with a guitar in a review, because it's down to personal preference. What you've listed as your perfect guitar is completely different to mine; does that mean it's any better or worse? No. Just that there are so many things with guitars that are just down to the player and what suits them, and you can't fault the guitar for it not suiting you. Nothing's going to work for everyone.

If you're comparing apples with apples eg. an Epiphone LP with another LP copy in a similar price range, then that's fine. But comparing guitars as a whole, even based on the same style eg. a Squier Strat with a Fender Custom Shop Strat, is completely pointless. They serve different purposes. And a lot of the reviews take note of this. Unless it's completely unplayable they won't pick on a $200 guitar for not being as good as a $2,000 one.

I do agree with you in terms of personal reviews though. A lot of people (with pretty much anything it seems, not just guitars) feel the need to justify their latest purchase by raving about how brilliant it is; ignoring any flaws, even major ones, in the process.

That's why I've given up reading any user-posted reviews that give anything the highest marks; people usually aren't being honest, whether they're aware of it or not. Like some of the people who claim that a bottom-of-the-range Epi is as good as, or better, than a Gibson. Yours might be, to you. But does it mean all of them are, to everyone else? Probably not, especially with the variance in quality of budget guitars.

 

[marnold]

I do agree with you in terms of personal reviews though. A lot of people (with pretty much anything it seems, not just guitars) feel the need to justify their latest purchase by raving about how brilliant it is; ignoring any flaws, even major ones, in the process.

That's why I've given up reading any user-posted reviews that give anything the highest marks; people usually aren't being honest, whether they're aware of it or not.

That's why I tend to use an Olympic-style scoring system when I look at reviews. Throw out the most gushing reviews and the ones that have nothing but complaints using many correctly spelled words. The truth usually lies in the middle. Of course, if something gets only glowing reviews or only crappy reviews, there's probably a reason for that too.