Martin OM21 vs. Taylor 714
Dan Reynolds
I am a bassist but am planning on getting a decent acoustic
guitar soon. I find myself rather spoiled as my partner in the acoustic
duo has a truly nice handmade ($3000 or so if bought new), the guitarist
at church uses a Martin J40, and the guitarist in my rock band uses a
PRS. I think that I've narrowed my preferences down to the Martin OM21 or
the Taylor 714. Both go for about $1500-$1600 in the local music shop; I
know I can get the OM21 for about $1200 mail order; I would guess that
since the list and the local prices are about the same there would be a
Taylor dealer who will deal.
My primary questions:
-Has anybody else out there a/b 'd these two axes (same room, same strings,
same day)?
- I will probably go with a Baggs dual source augmented with a magnetic
sound hole pickup, with the three sources mixed together; is anybody
recording or gigging with a similar setup?
-I can't get too jazzed about the Santa Cruz 000 series, they just sound
sort of sterile to me, but is this perhaps due to my inexperience? they
seem to be perfectly made and incredibly even string to string and up the
neck, but I didn't find the music 'inside' the guitar breaking forth the
second I picked it up like I did with the OM21....still I know that the
first time I heard a really high end stereo it didn't care for it
either...not sure here... if I just may be unaware of the subtle things;
I've played bass for 21 of my 35 years and I know that a rookie would not
begin to appreciate the tones of some of the better basses I've owned or
own (Alembic and other handcrafted..)
The ultimate decision, of course is what gets me stoked in
sound/playability...but anybody out there got any additional clues for
me? I know that I DON'T want to ever have to upgrade again, and know
that a great guitarist I will never be; sort of in the middle here- have
heard and played with too many good guitars to accept poor tone, but
without the long, long experience of someone who has had guitar as their
main axe for 20 or 30 years... Nobody around here (Sonoma County, No.
California) carries Collings or Breedlove or Laravee(sp?)...don't know of
any places in S.F. that carry these ...
Thanks in advance for any and all input! And now back to the lurk.
mez...@pacbell.net
Dan Reynolds wrote:
>
> I am a bassist but am planning on getting a decent acoustic
> -Has anybody else out there a/b 'd these two axes (same room, same
> sound hole pickup, with the three sources mixed together; is anybody
> recording or gigging with a similar setup?>>
Dan, I have played both these instruments, and, in fact have an OM-21.
The Martin and Taylor are both terrific instruments. As far as bells 'n'
whistles, doesn't the Taylor have much more inlay work, purfling on the
back, etc. They are both Indian rosewood/spruce models, right? Both 000
size bodies, right? The Taylor may have a friendlier neck shape. They've
got a reputation for this. The Martin may have a better resale value, if
you decide to sell sometime. When I bought mine, I just liked the sound a
lot. This, and playability are most important to me. BTW, this model of
Martin, the OM-21, is fairly bright, at least the three I've played. In
general, Taylors seem to have a tighter sound, and Martins may have a
swimmier, more midrangey quality. Maybe. All individual guitars will
sound different, prices subject to change, comments are not the express
opinion of this station, opnions vary with the wind, and good luck.
mez...@pacbell.net
Oh, yeah,
I forgot one thing, Dan. Rethink the pickup thing. Pickup designs come
and go, but the guitar will be around long after the pickups you
permanently install become obsolete and worthless. If you jump on the
piezo bandwagon, and put in an endpin jack, under the saddle pickup,
etc., you may live to regret it. There are three pickups which snap into
the soundhole with no muss or fuss. Bill Lawrence, Dean Markley, and
Seymor Duncan. The Lawrence and Duncan have volume controls built in.
They're all magnetic, but so what? If you want the best of both worlds,
play into a mic and use a snap on magnetic for the monitors and some
added sustain. Then you don't have to carve up your new premium acoustic
guitar. All that said, it's the music, not the gear that really counts.
I'm done now.
George Kaschner
mez...@pacbell.net wrote:
: I forgot one thing, Dan. Rethink the pickup thing. Pickup designs come
Where did these people come from all of a sudden that are sooooooooo
adamant about CARVING a hole into the guitar. If you're talking an
under-the-saddle transducer, it's a tiny hole that has no detectable
effect on the guitar. That part of the guitar is so robust, it's
incredible. Take out a mirror if you don't believe me and look inside
your guitar. On a steel string guitar, you'll typically have a maple
plate on the underside of the bridge.
Regarding CARVING a hole in the side of your guitar (as one of our other
new members seems to harp on), the correct method is to ream the existing
hole that the endpin occupies. Once again, I invite you all to get to
know the innards of your guitar if you haven't already done so. There is
a HUGE block of wood at the end of the guitar. Drilling or reaming a hole
in the center of that block does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the sound of your
instrument. Resale value-wise (shame on you for even thinking about
selling your guitar), if the buyer wants a transducer in the guitar, it's
wonderful to already have the work done (properly).
If the original poster really meant that "it's the music, not the gear",
then fitting a transducer to your instrument is not a problem at all. If
a magnetic pickup satisfies your ears, more power to you. I'd still
prefer to use an endpin jack to take care of routing the cable.
Go for the tone,
George Kaschner
ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZZ (this is only a drill)
jom...@aol.com
You may wish to consider the difference between the OM21's dovetail neck
joint, a time tested (150+ years!) method vs. Taylor's use of a dry,
bolt-on neck "joint"- a technique that dates all the way back to the Jerry
Ford administration.
The OM21 is one of the best values in the Martin line. Rosewood b&s,spruce
top, scalloped 1/4" braces gloss laquer, dovetail construction, long
(25.4") scale and the cool "OM" teardrop pickgaurd. List is $2110 with
hard case.
Good luck with whatever you choose.
Joe McNamara
CF Martin
Joe McNamara
lpa...@aol.com
In article <19961125151...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jom...@aol.com
wrote:
Joe,
Do you work for Martin? If so, shouldn't we assume that you have an axe
to grind? Don't the entry level Martin's now have bolt on necks, as
Martin tools up to move into the 20th century? While Taylor will only
produce about 14,000 guitars this year compared to Martin's 20,000, I
think your bashing the bolt on neck is pretty durned funny.
The only thing proven about the dovetail joint "time tested (150+ years!)
method" is that every single old Martin I've ever seen has needed a neck
reset. If this is true down the road for Taylors, fine. Let's see, an
overnight $125 reset vs. a several month $350 job. Not to mention that
the three most sought after small production shop guitars (Collings,
Goodall, & Breedlove) use the bolt on technology. Of course, Santa Cruz
builds a great guitar using the dovetail method, rounding out the "big
little four". Wait, I forgot Bourgeois, so 4 out of 5 use the bolt on
system vs. dovetail. Sounds like a toothpaste commercial.....4 out of 5
dentists prefer....
You may think I have an axe to grind, but I actually just acquired a
Martin Golden Era OOO-28. My first Martin in over 20 years. Pat yourself
on the back for building a dandy, but don't abuse Bob Taylor's innovative
technology for building guitars. It's well known that Martin has had to
re-evaluate many things about their business to compete with Taylor & Co.
in the mass produced guitar market.
Larry Pattis
gma...@aol.com
Taylor v. Martin = the best of the battle in the production guitar market,
to be sure. That said, I think that before you get to the sound properties
of individual instruments there are some generalities which have to be
weighed.
I personally do not care for the extremely low profile Taylor neck. I also
prefer the aesthetics of Martin guitars generally and find the Taylor
pickguard and headstock shapes visually unappealing. I don't suggest that
everyone esle sees through my eyes, hence each maker has a big market or
neither would be producing the guitars in thvolumes they are.
As Larry Pattis points out Martin has scrambled a bit to compete with
Taylor at the lower price points. To my ear however, they have taken the
lead in the past couple of years, just as the VR series now puts great
classic Martin tones in the hands of a new generation of players.
In the sixties and seventies this kind of quality was simply not being
produced at Martin, and I for one am glad that the successes of Collings
and SantaCruz at one end of the spectrum and Taylor at the other have
pushed Martin off dead center and got them making truly spectacular
instruments again.
On balance I like Martin over Taylor, but there is clearly room and demand
for both.
All the best,
Magic.
lpa...@aol.com
In article <19961125183...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jom...@aol.com
wrote:
>Larry,
>Yup, I work for Martin and Nope, we DONT use a bolt-on neck on ANY of our
>guitars. The "1" series neck joint (DM-D16) is a glued-in, wood-to-wood
>mortise and tenon joint. The bolt that is in the joint acts as a clamp
>when gluing the tenon into mortise on the neck block. It does not carry
>the load - we leave it there for additional strength. In fact, we state
in
>print "After the neck is glued, the brass screw could, for all practical
>puposes, be removed and discarded". Combined with the new patented "J"
>block, which has channels for the redesigned "a-frame" scalloped cross
>bracing, we have improved an area that has been problematic for EVERY old
>flattop guitar I've ever seen. I think our system provides superior bass
>response and sustain over a correspondingly priced bolt-on, which of
>course is my opinion. Remember, we now make lifetime warrentied guitars,
>in Nazareth, that list with case for $899!
>I am second to none in my admiration for BT's innovations. We have taken
>the idea he had of using technology to speed up production and modified
it
>to fit our standards. To try and position some one a who is making well
>over 14,000 guitars a year as the little guy is silly. We've spent 163
>years getting to that production level vs. what, 20-25 years for Taylor.
>As to my "bashing" Taylor, I was trying to be "pretty damned funny". I
>think their touchie-feelie print ads are even funnier! And as far as
>Taylor, Goodall, Collings et al embracing the bolt-on neck, remember what
>your Mom probably used to say? "If Billy jumped off the Empire State
>Building, would YOU jump off the Empire State Building??" (at least thats
>what my mom said, I grew up on The Island). We don't choose to go down
>that road. I am not saying that ours is the only way- in fact ALL of my
>Fenders have bolt-on neck, (well they do have 4 bolts, instead of just
2),
>so it's not like I don't endorse bolt-on necks! Relax, I'm just being a
>smartass. I have played a zillion guitars over the last 32 years that
I've
>been a player- just about everything out there. Good Taylors, bad
Taylors,
>bad Martins, good Martins and a host of inbetweens. Your response points
>out the need for Martin to educate the public about the difference
between
>us and the bolt-on guys. As the last line of my original post says, good
>luck with whatever you choose!
>Thank you for choosing a Martin.
>Joe McNamara
Thanks for responding, however I notice your ommission in responding to my
comment of old Martin's needing neck resets. You see Joe, your kind of
"smart ass" rhetoric reminds me of Rush Limbaugh. Enough info to seem
like a just and valid opinion, but ignoring whole parts of the truth.
As far as you "jumping off the building" analogy, again, all you are doing
is avoiding the truth. The truth is that bolt on necks do work on
acoustics, and Martin Guitars claiming that they don't (or that the dove
tail is *better*) is like claiming to be a little bit pregnant. Can't be.
The dove tail joint has been shown to require neck resets. The bolt on
technique has been shown to also require neck resets. Which would you
rather pay for or wait for? And to me tone is not the issue, because some
people prefer the Martin tone, some the Taylor tone, and others something
else.
I know you've played a lot of guitars, and are educated about the
industry. Not that you need your hand held, but I would be careful on
rmmga touting Martin stuff, because it will certainly come off as self
serving. Folks jump right on that kind of thing. You should have seen
(about 2 years ago) when Bob Taylor himself responded to a question about
fret hardness and some metalurgists reamed him (figuratively) a new
asshole. Never heard from Bob on rmmga since.
Larry Pattis
John Bushong
lpa...@aol.com wrote:
[snip lots of rhetoric]
>...I would be careful on
> rmmga touting Martin stuff, because it will certainly come off as self
> serving. Folks jump right on that kind of thing. You should have seen
> (about 2 years ago) when Bob Taylor himself responded to a question about
> fret hardness and some metalurgists reamed him (figuratively) a new
> asshole. Never heard from Bob on rmmga since.
>
> Larry Pattis
Sorry, but this is misinformation. Bob did respond to all of those
question, has been heard from on this group since and, as far as I'm
concerned, I valued the discussion about fret hardness. Let's not try to
run off everyone that is affiliated with a major guitar manufacturer.
They are pretty handy to have around.
R "Coop" Harris
> Thanks for responding, however I notice your ommission in responding to my > comment of old Martin's needing neck resets. You see Joe, your kind
of
> "smart ass" rhetoric reminds me of Rush Limbaugh. Enough info to seem
> like a just and valid opinion, but ignoring whole parts of the truth.
>
> As far as you "jumping off the building" analogy, again, all you are doing
> is avoiding the truth. The truth is that bolt on necks do work on
> acoustics, and Martin Guitars claiming that they don't (or that the dove
> tail is *better*) is like claiming to be a little bit pregnant. Can't be.
> The dove tail joint has been shown to require neck resets. The bolt on
> technique has been shown to also require neck resets. Which would you
> rather pay for or wait for? And to me tone is not the issue, because some
> people prefer the Martin tone, some the Taylor tone, and others something
> else.
>
> I know you've played a lot of guitars, and are educated about the
> rmmga touting Martin stuff, because it will certainly come off as self
> serving. Folks jump right on that kind of thing. You should have seen
> (about 2 years ago) when Bob Taylor himself responded to a question about
> fret hardness and some metalurgists reamed him (figuratively) a new
> asshole. Never heard from Bob on rmmga since.
>
> Larry Pattis
Boys, boys, boys.. Can't we all just get along? I for one am happy to
have a Martin Co. guy on rmmga, even though I just traded in a
lovely HD28 and a 00016 for a bolt on Breedlove :>). Maybe he can
continue to dispell some misinformation that seems to run rampant out
there. I love Martins, so do thousands of others, neck joint be
damned. Wait a sec Larry, didn't you just opt for a Martin vintage model
00028 12 fretter? Seems like there's room for everyone to me.
BTW, I miss Bob Taylor on this newsgroup. If you're lurking out there
Bob, come on back, that is if you can handle the acoustic horeshit thrown
at you.... Cheers everyone...Coop.
Guy Near
R "Coop" Harris wrote:
>
> > Thanks for responding, however I notice your ommission in responding to my > comment of old Martin's needing neck resets. You see Joe, your kind
> of
> > "smart ass" rhetoric reminds me of Rush Limbaugh. Enough info to seem
> > like a just and valid opinion, but ignoring whole parts of the truth.
> >
> > As far as you "jumping off the building" analogy, again, all you are doing
> > is avoiding the truth. The truth is that bolt on necks do work on
> > acoustics, and Martin Guitars claiming that they don't (or that the dove
> > tail is *better*) is like claiming to be a little bit pregnant. Can't be.
> > The dove tail joint has been shown to require neck resets. The bolt on
> > technique has been shown to also require neck resets. Which would you
> > rather pay for or wait for? And to me tone is not the issue, because some
> > people prefer the Martin tone, some the Taylor tone, and others something
> > else.
> >
> > I know you've played a lot of guitars, and are educated about the
> > industry. Not that you need your hand held, but I would be careful on
> > rmmga touting Martin stuff, because it will certainly come off as self
<snip>
Jeeez - the guy said they have a life time fix if ya need it.
I am really glad to see the people producing our guitars here!!!!!
Please don't scare him off.
With the state of production in America and our "throw away society",
I am looking at used guitars as the only ones you can trust. Look
at the new and expensive at your local music store and BUY the
tried and true at your local pawn shop/yard sale!
Guy Near
ne...@jrwood.com
jom...@aol.com
R. Coop Harris
Guy, you misquoted me here. The above should be attributed to Larry, not
me. Following these threads can get real confusing, eh?... Coop.
jom...@aol.com
I'll make it plain for you. There is a demonstable difference between the
way Martin makes non-dovetail guitars and the way bolt-on neck guitars are
constructed. One extremely important benefit of a bolt on neck is economy
of scale. You can cut a zillion necks on a CNC machine and as there is no
"joint" to fit, *any* neck can be bolted to *any* body. Obviously I'm
simplifiing the *any*, but given the same scale length, it's true.
You seem to not understand that we believe that a tenon (a male plug
perpendicular to the plane of the fingerboard about the length and
thickness of your index finger) that is an integral part of the one piece
solid mahogany neck, glued into a corresponding female slot (mortise) in
the neck block , is a stronger joint and a more efficient transducer of
energy. The corresponding redesign of the "J" series neck block ,which
creates a "shelf" under the end of the fingerboard that the new bracing
pattern ties into, also reinforces this area where ALL cross braced
guitars are subject to a lot of pressure. I know i'm repeating myself a
little here, but you state that I'm ignoring your post about "old martins
needing neck sets". I think it more proper to say old guitars need neck
resets. There are probably more Martins needing neck sets because people
want to play them, and they are worth keeping in playing condition. Since
I have only ever worked in the guitar business, either as a player,
salesguy, store owner or rep and don't expect to ever leave this biz, I'll
probably be around to see what happens to all the new guitar construction
methods. Time will be the judge on this issue.
We have adopted the CNC machine for cutting both the tenon and mortise,
allowing us to make zillions of necks and fit them into any of the
precisely cut neck blocks. The proper neck angle is milled into both the
mortise and the tenon by a CNC machine that is capable of tolerances
accurate enough for precision metalwork!
I don't think my Empire state analogy is avoiding anything- we are not
saying "only" dovetails, or "better" as you seem to understand it. We have
studied what these guys have done, adapted and improved it. If you are so
concerned about neck re-sets, why are you buying the guitars you claim you
own in your post to me?
I appreciate your advice re: being a tout on the internet, but I would
offer one back. Saying things like "every old Martin I've ever seen needed
a neck reset" makes you sound at best, uninformed. Saying "tone is not an
issue", might make some doubt your frame of reference. Show mw how to add
bass and sustain to a guitar that doesn't already have it and I'll help
you market it! We'll both get rich.
Rush Limbaugh!?? Holy smoke! I can't even begin to tell you how insulting
I find that. As I told you in your e-mail to me, I would prefer to keep
our discussions public.
Joe
Joe McNamara
gregc
In article <329A45...@jrwood.com>, ne...@jrwood.com wrote:
>R "Coop" Harris wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for responding, however I notice your ommission in responding to my
> > comment of old Martin's needing neck resets. You see Joe, your kind
>> of
>> > "smart ass" rhetoric reminds me of Rush Limbaugh. Enough info to seem
>> > like a just and valid opinion, but ignoring whole parts of the truth.
>> >
>> > As far as you "jumping off the building" analogy, again, all you are doing
>> > is avoiding the truth. The truth is that bolt on necks do work on
>> > acoustics, and Martin Guitars claiming that they don't (or that the dove
>> > tail is *better*) is like claiming to be a little bit pregnant. Can't be.
>> > The dove tail joint has been shown to require neck resets. The bolt on
>> > technique has been shown to also require neck resets. Which would you
>> > rather pay for or wait for? And to me tone is not the issue, because some
>> > people prefer the Martin tone, some the Taylor tone, and others something
>> > else.
>> >
>> > I know you've played a lot of guitars, and are educated about the
>> > industry. Not that you need your hand held, but I would be careful on
>> > rmmga touting Martin stuff, because it will certainly come off as self
>> > serving. Folks jump right on that kind of thing. You should have....
>
view point which I, for one, am always glad to hear. That's what this group is
all about. Personally, I don't care how a neck joint is done so long as it
does the job. I used to be a 'dove tail' snob myself, but over time have seen
that (snobbery) as a mistake. Embrace the future as well as the past. Take the
best of both. I enjoy Gibson and Fender electrics and have owned both. I
currently play a Taylor acoustic but I'm shopping for a Martin now. Enough
said.
gregc
Robert McArthur
In article <19961125210...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lpa...@aol.com says:
>
>
>In article <19961125183...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jom...@aol.com
>wrote:
>
>>Larry,
> The dove tail joint has been shown to require neck resets. The bolt on
>technique has been shown to also require neck resets.
Larry--I've also seen posts on rmmga that hold that the bolt in the bolt
on neck does a superior job tansferrring sound to the soundboard. Any
substance to this??
Robert
lpa...@aol.com
In article <19961126042...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jom...@aol.com
wrote:
>I'll make it plain for you. There is a demonstable difference between the
>way Martin makes non-dovetail guitars and the way bolt-on neck guitars
are
>constructed. One extremely important benefit of a bolt on neck is economy
>of scale. You can cut a zillion necks on a CNC machine and as there is no
>"joint" to fit, *any* neck can be bolted to *any* body. Obviously I'm
>simplifiing the *any*, but given the same scale length, it's true.
>You seem to not understand that we believe that a tenon (a male plug
>perpendicular to the plane of the fingerboard about the length and
>thickness of your index finger) that is an integral part of the one
piece
>solid mahogany neck, glued into a corresponding female slot (mortise) in
>the neck block , is a stronger joint and a more efficient transducer of
>energy. The corresponding redesign of the "J" series neck block ,which
>creates a "shelf" under the end of the fingerboard that the new bracing
>pattern ties into, also reinforces this area where ALL cross braced
>guitars are subject to a lot of pressure. I know i'm repeating myself a
>little here, but you state that I'm ignoring your post about "old martins
>needing neck sets". I think it more proper to say old guitars need neck
>resets. There are probably more Martins needing neck sets because people
>want to play them, and they are worth keeping in playing condition
Probably true (no, definitely true), and this is a a very informative
post. Thank you.
>Since I have only ever worked in the guitar business, either as a player,
>salesguy, store owner or rep and don't expect to ever leave this biz,
I'll
>probably be around to see what happens to all the new guitar construction
>methods. Time will be the judge on this issue.
> We have adopted the CNC machine for cutting both the tenon and mortise,
>allowing us to make zillions of necks and fit them into any of the
>precisely cut neck blocks. The proper neck angle is milled into both the
>mortise and the tenon by a CNC machine that is capable of tolerances
>accurate enough for precision metalwork!
This is great. Thank you, Bob Taylor, for being the innovator here. And
believe me, I don't bow to the Taylor factory every morning....I just like
to give credit where credit is due. Maybe Martin will come up with the
next big innovation. And I'm glad that Martin has adapted technology that
Taylor pioneered to build their guitars. Everyone benefits.
> I don't think my Empire state analogy is avoiding anything- we are not
>saying "only" dovetails, or "better" as you seem to understand it. We
have
>studied what these guys have done, adapted and improved it. If you are so
>concerned about neck re-sets, why are you buying the guitars you claim
you
>own in your post to me?
Because I buy a guitar not for what might happen 10 or 20 years down the
road, but for what I hear as good tone right now. I'm not worried about
neck resets, but for some folks this can be an issue. I also happen to
own Collings, Goodall and Breedlove guitars, which are bolt ons....and I
own them because they sound good, play good, etc.
>I appreciate your advice re: being a tout on the internet, but I would
>offer one back. Saying things like "every old Martin I've ever seen
needed
>a neck reset" makes you sound at best, uninformed.
This is true, however. I've absolutely never seen an old (40 years or
more) Martin that didn't need/ or have received a neck reset. I really
like what you said earlier, that rather than say "old Martins", say "old
guitars" need neck resets. That's good and fair.
>Saying "tone is not an
>issue", might make some doubt your frame of reference.
Tone is always the issue, but I'm saying that people like different things
about the tone of guitars, and for every 10 Martin lovers, I'll show you
several die-hard Taylor people, or a number of Gibson aficianados. Hell,
as a retailer I heard folks claim that their all plywood Yamaha was the
best guitar they'd ever played. Hard to dispute what people believe deep
down. Ever talk to a "right to lifer" or "pro choice" person with an
opposing viewpoint? For a representative of Martin to claim any of their
neck systems is superior to Taylor's is not surprising. But here on rmmga
you'll get a balancing viewpoint.
>Show mw how to add
>bass and sustain to a guitar that doesn't already have it and I'll help
>you market it! We'll both get rich.
I've already done this (not get rich, but marketing a guitar with added
bass and sustain) as Breedlove's number one retailer/store owner for 4
years, and then as manager of their marketing & sales. If my friends at
Breedlove had built their instruments to look more like Taylors or
Martins, well, I *might* be rich. I'd suggest the R & D folks at Martin
buy a Breedlove and a few extra bridge trusses to experiment with. Of
course they've probably already done this 8-). I wouldn't advocate
radically changing the way Martin builds, but a model or two with the
bridge truss would give you exactly what you are describing. And then
(finally) the bridge truss (patented as the "bridge doctor") would gain
some acceptance beyond those *wild* Breedlove guitars and their *crazed*
owners!
>Rush Limbaugh!?? Holy smoke! I can't even begin to tell you how insulting
>I find that. As I told you in your e-mail to me, I would prefer to keep
>our discussions public.
But Joe, you emailed me first....I'm glad to keep this public, I just
thought maybe you wanted to email in private. Oh, and as to the Rush L.
comparison, well, I apologize. But your first post was laden with an
agenda, and not all of it (very little of it, actually) was giving space
to the fact that these were your *opinions*, and not the gospel.
I hope you stay abreast of rmmga....lots of it is repeat questions about
"which pickup is best?", or "guitar XX vs. guitar YY", which is pretty
boring after a while. When we get the occasion to really learn something
(as in your second post, describing the new mortise/tenon neck joint
technology), well, that is what keeps me tuning in to rmmga.
Larry Pattis
david_means
In article <19961125151...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jom...@aol.com says...
>
>You may wish to consider the difference between the OM21's dovetail neck
>joint, a time tested (150+ years!) method vs. Taylor's use of a dry,
>bolt-on neck "joint"- a technique that dates all the way back to the Jerry
>Ford administration.
>Joe McNamara
>CF Martin
>
Yep, and the results of that time-testing are that it will require a very
difficult, risky, and expensive neck reset every thirty years! ;->
MHO,
Dave Means
dme...@fcc.gov
jom...@aol.com
Well, in a awesme display of synchronicity I just called one of my
accounts only to find Larry Pattis there! We spoke at legnth and I don't
think you board members will be suffering any flame wars 'tween us.
Surprisingly, we both agreed that the new Kays are the finest instruments
available. This is probably going to upset Martin, but hey- you gotta do
what ya gotta do.
Seriously, I appreciated LP's comments re: my last post, and will remind
all that my opinion is just that-my opinion. I hope to be here for a good
long time and will try to refrain from "selling" on issues unrelated to
the discussions at hand.
Joe
Joe McNamara
kerry brooks
>Larry Pattis
Since Joe works for Martin maybe he can tell us if anyone else in the
world is buying the GoldenEra 00028s .... reading this group, one
might get the impression that they are all going to rmmga-ers!!
Kerry Brooks
lpa...@aol.com
In article <19961126192...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jom...@aol.com
wrote:
Life is serendipitous at times. It was fun watching my buddy Kennard
answer Joe's questions about me while I was standing right there. What
Joe neglected to mention is that we'll be moving in together, and have
already begun shopping for drapes. It was fun to chat, actually, and we
found out that we are both irascible s.o.b.s that love guitars in nearly
every form. Except the plywood varieties!
See ya'
LP
david_means
In article <57f25m$s...@lana.zippo.com>, David says...
Sorry, Joe,
If I had seen all the other responses before I posted mine, I wouldn't
have "piled on."
You have to realize, however, that you should expect this kind of response
when you throw out such an obvious straight line, especially from your
obviously biased viewpoint.
Martin makes some fine guitars, but to many of us the semi-permanent
dovetail neck joint is more of a liability than an advantage.
Dave Means
dme...@fcc.gov
lpa...@aol.com
Well, most (if not all) dovetail proponents claim that this method
transfers vibration/sound best. And I'm sure Martin will claim that the
tenon/mortise system is better than "bolt on" methods because of the more
"solid" wood to wood connection. That's fine, because I truly don't care
one way or the other!! I think all arguments about which is "better" are
moot. All I can say is that I have heard and played some damned fine
guitars with BOTH systems. Damned fine. So to me, it doesn't really
matter one way or the other which system is employed, as long as the
guitar sounds good to my ears. I don't know if someone like Bob Taylor,
Bill Collings, Steve Henderson, Dana Bourgeois or James Goodall would
claim that the bolt on system transfers *energy* any better or worse than
a dovetail joint. They will certainly ALL tell you that a neck reset on
their guitars is easier. As is the original building process. I am
certainly not a luthier nor a mechanical engineer, so I'm not qualified to
have a "technical" opinion, but as I mentioned earlier, my ears tell me
that both systems work. Ask me again in 20 years when all of my guitars
will have needed neck resets, which system I like better! 8-) Actually,
one of the reasons that I don't hesitate to own a dovetail neck guitar is
the (hopefully not misplaced) hope that today's building techniques,
glues, and technology will prove more reliable than something built in the
1930's.
Larry Pattis
Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou
Now, now boys - break it up and let everyone play. Listen up...I'm going
to ask a stupid question.
Larry wrote:
>Not to mention that the three most sought after small production shop
guitars >(Collings, Goodall, & Breedlove) use the bolt on technology. Of
course, Santa >Cruz builds a great guitar using the dovetail method,
rounding out the "big
>little four".
What?.....Now, I was just convinced that Santa Cruz used some variation of
Bob's bolts. My guitar had to have some work done on it early this
year that involved some top re-finishing and got sent back to Mr Hoover's
workshop to be done properly. He told me that they 'knock the necks off'
as a matter of course for such work (came back better, too). Somehow, this
and looking at the, what appears to be, 'dry' joint of neck to body got me
assuming it was bolt-on. Anyone know how the Santa Cruz neck thang is
done and if it's substantially different from traditional Martin
dovetails, or do I have to phone Santa Cruz?
Thanks, guys.
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou
Dan Gilman
>My primary questions:
>-Has anybody else out there a/b 'd these two axes (same room, same strings,
>same day)?
Yes and no. If the rosewood/spruce limited edition GA's that Taylor put out
preliminary to the -14s, then yes. If not, no. I did that particular
comparison once (and played four or five OM21s in a guitar hunt last fall).
Both seemed like nice guitars, though rather different (not surprising, I
guess, given the different design, and the fact that the Taylor is simply
a bigger guitar). I have to say that I much prefered all the OM28s I
played to all the 21s. This may just be me, or it may just be the particular
guitars I tried. But I did make the comparison in several different
shops and in each case found the 28 to be significantly better--more
open sounding, better projection--a livlier guitar. I guess I'd prefer
that to either of the 2 you asked about but all three seem worth a look
and I'm not the one who counts.
>-I can't get too jazzed about the Santa Cruz 000 series, they just sound
>sort of sterile to me, but is this perhaps due to my inexperience? they
>seem to be perfectly made and incredibly even string to string and up the
>neck, but I didn't find the music 'inside' the guitar breaking forth the
>second I picked it up like I did with the OM21....
I dunno. I've only seen one of the 000s and wouldn't say sterile at all.
I did play four SCGC OMs before settling on mine and in every case prefered
them to the Martin OM21s and 28s on hand. I did really like several of
the 28s, but I thought there was just more there with the SCGC's I
tried. You might try bringing the friend you mentioned with you to shop.
Have him play some guitars at you to see what they sound like from both
ends (not that your playing both sounds the same but . . .) Also, try
discussing what you're hearing with the friend. Doing so might help
you to focus on things you're overlooking or it might not change your
opinion at all. In the end, it's your ears that have to be happy and your
money that's on the line.
>Nobody around here (Sonoma County, No.
>California) carries Collings or Breedlove or Laravee(sp?)...don't know of
>any places in S.F. that carry these ...
I'm pretty sure you can find all of the above in the bay area--why not
post a bay area guitar shop querry (Gryphon seems to get mentioned a lot,
and I think Steve Swan, while mostly selling SC, sometimes gets a used
Collings or two, but I've only spent a little time in the area and others
will give you much better information).
Good luck.
Dan
Dan Gilman
In article <19961125161...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lpa...@aol.com
says:
>The only thing proven about the dovetail joint "time tested (150+ years!)
>method" is that every single old Martin I've ever seen has needed a neck
>reset. If this is true down the road for Taylors, fine. Let's see, an
>overnight $125 reset vs. a several month $350 job.
Larry--you raise a number of good points but I'll question these two:
1) have they all needed a neck reset WITHIN the time Taylor and Collings
have been around?
2) Time and Expense: though I don't know the time it takes for a factory
reset, I don't think local Martin authorized repair folks are taking
several months to do a reset--and isn't the cost nil to the original
owner of the guitar
I'm not bringing this up to criticize the bolt-ons--just wondering about
the argument
Dan
jdavid2
David, Means wrote:
>
> In article <19961125151...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jom...@aol.com says...
> >
> >You may wish to consider the difference between the OM21's dovetail neck
> >joint, a time tested (150+ years!) method vs. Taylor's use of a dry,
> >
> Yep, and the results of that time-testing are that it will require a very
> difficult, risky, and expensive neck reset every thirty years! ;->
Well I'm interested to see that _everyone_ in this discussion seems to
agree that all old Martins/guitars need neck resets every thirty to
forty years. I have a couple of old Martin's myself, which I will
happily put up against _anyone's_ Taylor or Santa Cruz or whatever (like
youall say--each to his own opinion, I use 'em on sessions all the time
and they are wonderful), and have access to a couple more that I use on
occasion. Mine are from '63 and '53 respectively and neither has ever
needed a neck reset or shows any signs of needing one now. Let me check
this on my calculator, but I think that's well over 30 yrs. on both. :-)
JD
--
Anthology of Christmas Music: The Christmas Guitar
http://www.pair.com/montrsmu
jom...@aol.com
Of course now we're fighting about curtains. Chintz over my dead body.
Lace or nothing, big boy!
Joe McNamara
gma...@aol.com
Okay, I don't work for Martin, but I DO share Joe's bias. To my ear there
is something to the Martin sound that Taylor simply lacks. I suspect the
preference war is largely a battle of age demographics. Those of us who
grew up with Martin as the benchmark sound tend to measure all other
guitars by that sound.
A new generation however, has come to acoustic playing from electric
playing, hence the wide appreciation and acceptance of the low profile
necks that BT has so skillfully woven into our consciousness. As well as,
perhaps, more aceptance of the questionable aesthetics of the Taylors.
(This refers to tonal aesthetics as well as my standard objections to
headstock, picguard and fretboard inlay: eg. imo, putting an Engleman top
on a dreadnought is very weird.)
My favorite Taylor guitars are by far the new Grand Auditiorium models,
though I've found the Jumbos to be excellent as well. With Martin however,
I hear more great guitars across the model lineup. Especially now that
they seem to be moving in the long hoped for and awaited direction of
making the vintage bracing and appointments the standard rather than the
exception.
All that said, my decision on what guitar to by has never been, and is not
likely ever to be - based on how the neck is joined to the body. It's not
even a factor.
Standard disclaimer - The "best" guitar is the one you like - applies.
All the best,
Magic.
jom...@aol.com
I'm pretty sure what the SCGC guy meant was that after the glue has been
softened you need to knock the dovetail joint apart. This type of joint,
when properly fitted, holds together very snug. In theory you can string
up a dovetail without glue and tune it to tension. When fitting these
joints together at Martin the guys use a rubber mallet and/or a sharp blow
from their bare hand to affix and remove.
Does Collings, whose beautiful guitars I have admired since I first saw
then at the "Charleys" show in '85 use a variation of >bob's bolts< and
"chris' plug"-that is, does he combine a motise&tenon with a couple of
threaded bolts? Anybody know?
Joe McNamara
btif...@pbs.org
>>You may wish to consider the difference between the OM21's dovetail neck
>>joint, a time tested (150+ years!) method vs. Taylor's use of a dry,
>>bolt-on neck "joint"- a technique that dates all the way back to the Jerry
>>Ford administration.
> Yep, and the results of that time-testing are that it will require a very
> difficult, risky, and expensive neck reset every thirty years! ;->
You got it!
I have an otherwise very nice classical guitar which badly needs a neck reset
it is never going to get because resetting a dovetail is far too costly! If
the thing had a bolt-on neck I'd have the thing reset in a heartbeat, and
it would be wonderfully playable again!
-- Bruce Tiffany
Bob Hester
In article <19961127112...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
gma...@aol.com wrote:
And all the better if it happens to be a Collings ;^)
--
My opinions...naturally.
lpa...@aol.com
In article <96331.14...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Dan wrote:
>Larry--you raise a number of good points but I'll question these two:
>
>1) have they all needed a neck reset WITHIN the time Taylor and Collings
>have been around?
Of course not. But remember, that's a short period of time compared to
Martin. Time will tell. And interestingly enough, as a retailer I've had
guitars show up *brand new* from different builders, both types of
systems, that needed neck resets. The bolt on guitars always showed up
back at my shop sooner. Once, a dove tail method guitar was sent back new
for a neck reset, and came back 3 months later with only minimal change.
I'm not going to say which builder, but you can imagine my frustration.
We eventually worked it out, but what a hassle.
>2) Time and Expense: though I don't know the time it takes for a factory
>reset, I don't think local Martin authorized repair folks are taking
>several months to do a reset--and isn't the cost nil to the original
>owner of the guitar
Yes, but free only to the original owner. So many are not original owner
instruments, and a good repair person is nearly worth their weight in
gold....or stacks of 1/4 sawn Brazilian. Time of repair is always a
variable, regardless of who does the work. The bolt on system is indeed a
24 hr job once started. I'm not really sure how long the actual process
is for the dovetail method once started.
>I'm not bringing this up to criticize the bolt-ons--just wondering about
>the argument
People are certainly free to criticize. The *truth* however, is hard to
get at in this case. Proponents of each system will claim that theirs is
*best*. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I've played damned fine
instruments from both "sides." Seems to me that the proof is in the
pudding. Give'm a taste test, and you'll know.
It's good to wonder.....As Richard Feynman once wrote:
"I wonder why
I wonder why
I wonder why I wonder
I wonder why I wonder why
I wonder why I wonder"
Or something like that!!
Larry Pattis
Greg DiCenzo
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Dan Gilman wrote:
> In article <19961125161...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lpa...@aol.com
> says:
>
> >The only thing proven about the dovetail joint "time tested (150+ years!)
> [snip snip]
> Larry--you raise a number of good points but I'll question these two:
>
I would just like to interject at this point in the discussion that this
is not Larry's argument; it was started in an arrogant way by the CF
Martin employee, and L Pattis made the obvious counterpoint that many
people agreed with.
Furthermore, the 30 yr interval that was so cleverly mocked by the Martin
rep includes not a sudden and abrupt need for a neck repair but probably
some period of decline during which the guitar is not optimum. To
disregard the cost of such a repair as minimal (by spreading it out over
thirty years) does not reflect the reality of most people's budgets.
I believe numerous people are trying to clear up the "junk" and clutter of
this argument (kill it!) by offering the olive branches: all of the
referred to guitars are fine instruments in their own way and aren't made
any better by being compared to others.
Greg DiCenzo
Tucson
Al Sato
jom...@aol.com wrote:
>Does Collings, whose beautiful guitars I have admired since I first saw
>then at the "Charleys" show in '85 use a variation of >bob's bolts< and
>"chris' plug"-that is, does he combine a motise&tenon with a couple of
>threaded bolts? Anybody know?
>Joe McNamara
Joe,
When I visited the Collings "factory" last year, I was able to observe
a neck being fitted. There is a mortise and tenon arrangement, where
the final fit of the joint is done by hand. Then there are two bolts.
There was considerable care placed in fitting the neck joint. I
believe that the combination of mortise and tenon plus bolts is quite
stable, although I haven't done any 30-year tests :-) so this is more
an article of faith on my part. Their neck joint does probably save
some labor, but it is certainly still labor-intensive.
Al
david_means
In article <329B6B...@pair.com>, jdavid2 says...
>
>David, Means wrote:
>>
>> In article <19961125151...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jom...@aol.com says...
>> >
>> >You may wish to consider the difference between the OM21's dovetail neck
>> >joint, a time tested (150+ years!) method vs. Taylor's use of a dry,
>> >
>> Yep, and the results of that time-testing are that it will require a very
>> difficult, risky, and expensive neck reset every thirty years! ;->
>
>agree that all old Martins/guitars need neck resets every thirty to
>forty years. I have a couple of old Martin's myself, which I will
>happily put up against _anyone's_ Taylor or Santa Cruz or whatever (like
>youall say--each to his own opinion, I use 'em on sessions all the time
>and they are wonderful), and have access to a couple more that I use on
>occasion. Mine are from '63 and '53 respectively and neither has ever
>needed a neck reset or shows any signs of needing one now. Let me check
>this on my calculator, but I think that's well over 30 yrs. on both. :-)
>
>JD
>--
>Anthology of Christmas Music: The Christmas Guitar
>http://www.pair.com/montrsmu
JD,
My point was not so much that Martins would need neck resets more often
than other quality guitars, but rather that the dovetail joint makes that
reset difficult, risky, and expensive. The need for a neck reset in a
well-built guitar is seldom brought on by any failure of the integrity of
the neck joint, but rather because the soundbox itself gradually changes
shape under the unrelenting tension of steel strings. I believe that most
guitars that are lightly built enough to be responsive, and are kept strung
up to concert pitch with steel strings of heavy enough gauge to bring out
the full volume potential, will need a reset every 30 or 40 years, regardless
of the maker or neck joint type.
If your Martins have indeed gone 33 and 42 years without needing resets,
then you are indeed fortunate. Of course, the perceived need for a reset
also involves the owner's degree of tolerance for high action! ;->
I am curious as to how you know for sure that neither of these axes has
never had a reset. Have you had them both in your possession or in your
family since they were new? A very well-done reset can be damned nearly
undetectable.
I have nothing against Martin -- they build some damn fine guitars. I just
think that progress has passed the dovetail neck joint by, and that it will
eventually go the way of the Spanish foot and ladder bracing (at least for
steel-string guitars), except for those who worship tradition for tradition's
sake. My opinion, of course...
Dave Means
dme...@fcc.gov
david_means
In article <19961127050...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jom...@aol.com says...
>
>Holy Smoke ! >>A difficult, risky and expensive neck reset every 30
>years!! << Why, that would mean if a 40 year old man buys one of these
>crummy Martins he'll only get to 70 before he has to undertake the risky
>task of having a neck reset! And no sooner than that gets done and at age
>100, he has to turn right back and do it again!! At 100! Well I think this
>is criminal, endangering the lives of our seniors that way, not to mention
>the pedestrians on the street near where the price gouging neck-reset
>thugs have their so-called "shops" I will be wrestling with my conscience
>about this all night. You have opened my eyes and I thank you for your
>valuable insights- you may have saved countless lives through your post.
>The question of liability is to frightening to even contemplate!
>
>Am I allowed to fool around if i don't put the company name under my
>signature?
>Tupac O'day
>Joe McNamara
Down, boy! Watch the blood pressure. A stroke will definitely affect your
chops!
You were the one who raised the subject; I was just explaining my viewpoint.
I thought a lot of people bought Martins because of their potential heirloom
value... now you're ridiculing that motivation.
Fool around as much as you like; just be sure to wear a capo. ;->
Snoop Davey Dogg (aka Dave Means)
jom...@aol.com
lpa...@aol.com
In article <19961127112...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
gma...@aol.com wrote:
>Okay, I don't work for Martin, but I DO share Joe's bias. To my ear there
>is something to the Martin sound that Taylor simply lacks. I suspect the
>preference war is largely a battle of age demographics. Those of us who
>grew up with Martin as the benchmark sound tend to measure all other
>guitars by that sound.
>
<<snip>>
>All that said, my decision on what guitar to by has never been, and is
not
>likely ever to be - based on how the neck is joined to the body. It's not
>even a factor.
>
>Standard disclaimer - The "best" guitar is the one you like - applies.
>
>All the best,
>Magic.
And you do like Collings, right? So as you said, "The "best" guitar is
the one you like - applies" is what should be the criteria for what to
buy, not the neck fastening method.
LP
Jon Pankake
David, Means wrote:
> I thought a lot of people bought Martins because of their potential heirloom
> value...
That may be, but when they pry mine out of my cold, stiff fingers, I want my
Martin to have a pitted fingerboard, frets worn to a nub, finish gone from
most of the top... maybe even a Willie Nelson hole on the post-up spot. And
even then, I plan to take it with me! :-)
jom...@aol.com
>> as Richard Feynman once wrote<<
I loved his work on "You Bet Your Life". The perfect foil for Groucho!
As Jeff Barry once wrote:
"I wonder,
wonder,
who?
Beh-doo-do-doop.
Who wrote the Book of Love?"
Hope all of you have a Great Thanksgiving Holiday.
Tupac O'day IV
Joe McNamara
lpa...@aol.com
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.96112...@ag.arizona.edu>, Greg
wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Dan Gilman wrote:
>
>> In article <19961125161...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
lpa...@aol.com
>> says:
>>
>> >The only thing proven about the dovetail joint "time tested (150+
years!)
>> [snip snip]
>> Larry--you raise a number of good points but I'll question these two:
>>
>
>I would just like to interject at this point in the discussion that this
>is not Larry's argument; it was started in an arrogant way by the CF
>Martin employee, and L Pattis made the obvious counterpoint that many
>people agreed with.
Well, Joe McNamara and I have talked (he's a Martin rep) and he was being
more tongue-in-cheek than any of us realized. And the man is a gentleman,
not arrogant. I'm not saying this to extend an "olive branch", but
because Joe is a genuinely nice guy with A LOT of knowledge. I think
we're all going to benefit having him on rmmga.
>Furthermore, the 30 yr interval that was so cleverly mocked by the Martin
>rep includes not a sudden and abrupt need for a neck repair but probably
>some period of decline during which the guitar is not optimum. To
>disregard the cost of such a repair as minimal (by spreading it out over
>thirty years) does not reflect the reality of most people's budgets.
This is very true, of course.
>I believe numerous people are trying to clear up the "junk" and clutter
of
>this argument (kill it!) by offering the olive branches: all of the
>referred to guitars are fine instruments in their own way and aren't made
>any better by being compared to others.
>
>Greg DiCenzo
>Tucson
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!
Larry Pattis
jom...@aol.com
Hey Greg,
My name is Joe McNamara. I'm gonna be around for a while, so get used to
it. >the Martin employee< sounds so formal! You seem to be pretty worked
up about this issue, so here goes one last time.
I'm sorry I made fun of Taylors neck joint history re: Jerry Ford.Just my
inherent wiseguy gene. I didn't start any argument, I pointed out the most
obvious difference in the construction of two guitars, in response to a
post that asked for just such an opinion. Larry's initial response was
predicated around the thought that Martin itself utilized bolt-on
construction, an issue which i have tried to explain without being
judgemental, simply factual. I honestly believe that there are sonic
differences in all 3 basic neck joints- bolt/dove/mortise&tenon, however
this is opinion. I like lots of guitars, not just Martins and have tried
to give props to the pioneers of the new technology.
As for my "clever" (hey thanks!) mocking of a guy boldly stating >needs a
neckset every 30 years<, I thought I gave it all the gravity a blanket
statement like that deserved. Life's too short, laugh a little.
What are you getting Larry and I for our housewarming? We're registered at
both Luthiers Merchantile and Stewart MacDonald.
Joe
Joe McNamara
Joseph Howell
Jeez, Louise, can't we all be brothers?
Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou
George Kaschner
Hmmmm, given those choices of names, I'd say "No, I don't think so".
An only child,
George Kaschner
jdavid2
David, Means wrote:
> I believe that most
> guitars that are lightly built enough to be responsive, and are kept strung
> up to concert pitch with steel strings of heavy enough gauge to bring out
> the full volume potential, will need a reset every 30 or 40 years, regardless
> of the maker or neck joint type.
Hi David,
I have found the _information_ contained in everyone's posts on this
subject to be very interesting and educational. I just wanted to throw
in my experience regarding the concern about resets. I'm certinly not
saying you are wrong, and I realize the fallacy of annecdotal proof, but
when people are saying "most" or "every", I just wanted to say that my
_personal_ survey came out a little different.
>
> If your Martins have indeed gone 33 and 42 years without needing resets,
Hey, where are the Math police when you need them! ;-)
> then you are indeed fortunate. Of course, the perceived need for a reset
> also involves the owner's degree of tolerance for high action! ;->
Well, I like to be able to play the William Tell Overture by shooting
arrows off the A and D strings alternately at the apples on my neighbors
tree.
(Just kidding, of course) Due to the delicate nature of recording
acoustic guitars and their foibles, and since it is my livelihood, I'm
pretty sensitive... uh, ok,--maybe, too sensitive--to little changes in
the instrument. My guitars play very easily, and the action is set
fairly normal. Since med gauge strings can tolerate lower action than
lighter ones, the D is set a little lower than the 000, but I don't
think you'd feel it as a big difference.
> I am curious as to how you know for sure that neither of these axes has
> never had a reset. Have you had them both in your possession or in your
> family since they were new? A very well-done reset can be damned nearly
> undetectable.
That's a good point. In the case of the older one, I have a pretty good
idea of it's complete history, and while it _is_, I suppose, remotely
possible, it just doesn't seem to fit the story in terms of timing, who
had it, what they were doing with it, and what's the likelihood that
they would have had that kind of repair performed. Considering that
along with my favorite expert repairman's evaluation, I'm pretty
confident nothing like that has been done. I'm sure you're more expert
than I am on this and if you say _he_ wouldn't be able to tell, then
maybe. But considering everything I would still tend to doubt it.
On the '63, I paid $180 for it, my first real good guitar, when it was
about 6mos. old. Unless little green men snuck it away when I wasn't
looking <g>, it has not been reset.
>
> I have nothing against Martin -- they build some damn fine guitars.
As people talk about all these guitars, I am reminded of Homer & Jethro.
Jethro asked "Look at my fingers racing beautifully all over the neck of
my mandolin, up & down, while _your_ hand just stays in one place there
on the GUItar. why?" Homer, pausing a beat, replied, "Your still lookin'
fer it, I _found_ it." :-)
I agree with you and everyone who has pointed out that all these makers
can and do come out with excellent instruments and there's a big matter
of personal taste involved, and maybe I should keep quiet, cause if
nobody else wants those dangerous, neck-gonna-fall- off Martins, maybe
they'll send them to ME [big smile].
Again, thanks to everyone for all the info. Have a great Thanksgiving!
George Kaschner
lpa...@aol.com wrote:
:
: In article <19961126192...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jom...@aol.com
: wrote:
"synchronicity"
Which Larry (lpa...@aol.com) countered with "serendipitous" and
"irascible".
The rmmga has indeed reached a new level of sophistication. While the
other groups are getting down and dirty over who's "best", we are blessed
with members who have a vocabulary as well as opinions worthy of respect.
No tongue in this guy's cheek, you folks are great! I may be leaving soon
but I hope to be back among you all with the new year. Have a safe
holiday season and only buy the guitars you cannot live without!
Regards,
George Kaschner
kerry brooks
jom...@aol.com writes:
>Hey Greg,
>My name is Joe McNamara. I'm gonna be around for a while, so get used to
>it. >the Martin employee< sounds so formal! You seem to be pretty worked
>up about this issue, so here goes one last time.
>I'm sorry I made fun of Taylors neck joint history re: Jerry Ford.Just my
>Joe McNamara
Hey Joe,
Are you doing your posting to this group "from home" or "from work?"
Kerry Brooks
david_means
In article <329CA0...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>, Jon says...
Jon,
Then you and the guitar will have even more heirloom value! Think of the
stories your kid could tell about the intermingled ashes in the urn on the
mantle.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Dave Means
steve...@aol.com
Happy Trails, George! Hope you'll be returning soon. It's good to have
you around.
Steve.
rau...@rio.com
> jom...@aol.com writes:
>
>
> own in your post to me?
> I appreciate your advice re: being a tout on the internet, but I would
> offer one back. Saying things like "every old Martin I've ever seen needed
> a neck reset" makes you sound at best, uninformed. Saying "tone is not an
> issue", might make some doubt your frame of reference. Show mw how to add
> bass and sustain to a guitar that doesn't already have it and I'll help
> you market it! We'll both get rich.
> Rush Limbaugh!?? Holy smoke! I can't even begin to tell you how insulting
> I find that. As I told you in your e-mail to me, I would prefer to keep
> our discussions public.
> Joe
> Joe McNamara
>
Joe,
Nice to see somebody from Martin in here.
I'm pretty new to all this InterNet stuff, and I don't really care to get involved in
flame wars or anything similar.
I want to say that I agree with your point of view on Martin necks. I sold an old
D-28 to my brother. The last time I saw him he still had it. I bought the guitar in
the early 60's. The D-28 is a 1955, as far as I know.
This 1955 D-28 has a perfectly straight neck. It's never needed to be reset.
The top of the guitar is perfectly flat, too. Nothing on this guitar is "pulled up."
I also might add that this guitar had been through plenty before I even bought it.
If the truth were to be known, a lot of people probably don't take proper care of
their guitars. I've seen a lot of guitars that were left in damp places, left in the hot
sun, and so forth. Another thing is that people use heavy guage strings when they
shouldn't.
Also, I got out and looked at several new Martin HD-28's recently, and I must
say that the workmanship in every one of them was absolutely perfect. Not
every Martin guitar I looked at was an HD-28, though. I saw plenty of other models
too. Everything I looked at was top-notch. I was unable to find even the slightest
thing wrong with *any* of these guitars.
Another thing is that all the Herringbones sounded pretty good "right out of the box."
This is unusual for a new guitar. In my experience, a lot of newer guitars sound
too tinny and stiff, for instance.
One thing I've noticed about all Martin guitars, regardless of model, is that they all
have a distinctive Martin sound. I even had an old all-mahogany Martin. I think it
may have been a 000-15, but don't hold me to the model number. My brother still
has that guitar too.
Even the little all-mahogany Martin sounds good. You wouldn't think so, but it does,
and it has the distinctive Martin sound.
Aesthetics are important to me. When they came out with fiberglass guitars with
graphite tops and such, for instance, I stayed the heck away from all that. It's just
not the same. But a lot of *wood* guitars aren't the same as a Martin either.
In fact, I don't know of *any* guitar that's *just* like a Martin.
So there's a situation here involving aesthetics, I think, that some people may be
missing. All the mechanical reasoning may not solve the question because there's
more to it than mechanics or physics, just like there's more to music than mechanics
or physics.
I also noticed that it was C.F. Martin Co. who invented "X" bracing. Not only that,
but I know from my own experience, over the last 30 years or so, that many other
guitar makers were imitating, or trying to imitate, Martin guitars.
Even Gibson started doing this in the 60's. They changed the shape of the old
Southerner Jumbos to the dreadnought shape. Same with their Country-Westerns.
And even Guild, if I'm not too mistaken, was using the word "dreadnought" in the
model name of some of their guitars.
There are countless other guitar manufacturers copying the shape and size of Martin
dreadnought guitars. I have a T. Haruo Model 80, for instance, that's the same shape
and size as a Martin dreadnought. I don't know if they're still making T Haruos, but the
only place I saw them was in California. The T. Haruo, of course, is Japanese. It was
my observation that it's the best sounding Japanese guitar I could find, bar none.
In spite of that, it still isn't a Martin. A lot of people have told me that they think it
sounds like a Martin, and basically, it does. But there is a *definite* difference.
One more thing -- I happened to come across a Martin MC-28 guitar with Brazilian
rosewood and some of the finest spruce I'd ever seen. When I first saw this guitar,
it reminded me of a pancake with a bite missing out of it. I wasn't used to acoustic
cutaways. But I took a good look at the materials and workmanship and I was
really impressed. Then I played the guitar and I have to say that this was about
the most *fun* guitar I'd ever played in my entire life. Whatever was said about them
in the Martin catalog was 100% true. This guitar really did have a lightning quick
action. And this guitar didn't play - it *sang*.
To sum it all up -- There's nothing like a Martin.
Just some of my observations.
Richard Ausili <rau...@rio.com>
Patrick Hines
it comes down i think to the following: martins live in the
folk/acoustic world and they are pretty. very pretty sounding.
somehow taylors were made in a world in which playing be-bop or some
kind of jazz or blues was more acceptable for reason unknown to me (i
wouldnt pay attention to any of the bolted on neck stuff) the taylor
(i have a 612 with single cutaway its small but with a big big
sound) stands alone as far as i can hear.
Bob Calo
NBC News
Mike R.
MSNBCI...@msn.com (Patrick Hines) wrote:
>Bob Calo
>NBC News
I disagree. I have a Taylor 420, and play everything from Bluegrass to
Beatles, Alice in Chains to SRV.
david_means
In article <329D34...@pair.com>, jdavid2 says...
>
<snip>
>As people talk about all these guitars, I am reminded of Homer & Jethro.
>Jethro asked "Look at my fingers racing beautifully all over the neck of
>my mandolin, up & down, while _your_ hand just stays in one place there
>on the GUItar. why?" Homer, pausing a beat, replied, "Your still lookin'
>fer it, I _found_ it." :-)
>
>I agree with you and everyone who has pointed out that all these makers
>can and do come out with excellent instruments and there's a big matter
>of personal taste involved, and maybe I should keep quiet, cause if
>nobody else wants those dangerous, neck-gonna-fall- off Martins, maybe
>they'll send them to ME [big smile].
>
>Again, thanks to everyone for all the info. Have a great Thanksgiving!
>
>JD
>--
>Anthology of Christmas Music: The Christmas Guitar
>http://www.pair.com/montrsmu
JD,
A most entertaining, enlightening, and erudite response! (there, George! --
"erudite!" -- how does that stack up in the vocabulary contest?)
I agree wholeheartedly and appreciate the anecdotal info; maybe I'll have
to back off a bit on my opinions. I do wish, though, that someone would
come up with an "emoticon" that indicates "tongue firmly implanted in
cheek". Maybe judicious use of that would head off some of the flack that
results when one treads on sensitive subjects!
Hope you had a good T-Day.
Dave Means
dme...@fcc.gov
chris...@aol.com
>it comes down i think to the following: martins live in >the
>folk/acoustic world and they are pretty. very pretty >sounding.
>somehow taylors were made in a world in which playing >be-bop or some
>kind of jazz or blues was more acceptable for reason >unknown to me (i
>wouldnt pay attention to any of the bolted on neck stuff) >the taylor
>(i have a 612 with single cutaway its small but with a >big big
>sound) stands alone as far as i can hear.
It seems that everyone who has weighed in on the side of Martin has been
playing them for years and are rightly attached to their guitars and sound
and can't conceive of anything differently. I'm a relatively new player
with little preconceived bias towards one guitar over another.
After a few years at hacking away on an Ibanez acoustic I decided I
deserved something better and went to vintage guitar shows with a musician
freind of mine and plucked at many a Martin, Guild, Gibson, etc. looking
for the best sound. I also tried new guitars and one afternoon I found
myself in a Guitar Center surrounded by Martins and Taylors. I seriously
thought I would walk out of there or somewhere with a Martin! But the
Taylor 714 I tried blew every other guitar in that room away, expensive
Martins included, more expensive Taylors included! Maybe it was just a
freak of nature, I don't know, but the balance the tone, I've never heard
one better. And for those of you who dismiss the Taylor and somehow
lacking compared to a comparable Martin, I can't help thinking its simple
bias.
But hey, a crap Harmony in the hands of an excellent player will sound
better than the finest guitar in the hands of a hack.
Chris S.
rmca
In article <19961204021...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, chris...@aol.com says:
>
And for those of you who dismiss the Taylor and somehow
>lacking compared to a comparable Martin, I can't help thinking its simple
>bias.
of this newsgroup, sort of like debating whose gonna win the
superbowl in football circles. When it starts up, and I sure as hell
will vote against that happening, you will see other people
come out and say there are much better guitars that either Martin
or Taylor. That's the gist of what always happens, and I'm pointing
this out so you can be prepared if it does--I would imagine
there are some holy grails made By Taylor, by Bougeois,
by Breedlove, by Collings, by Santa Cruz, by Lowden, by Thompson,
by Goodall, by Weber, by Langehans, by Olson, by Traugott, by
Manson, by Larrivee, by Klein, by Froggy Bottom, by Gallaghar
by McGill, by Sobell, and even by Martin.
Cheers--Robert
steve...@aol.com
In article <19961204021...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
chris...@aol.com writes:
>>it comes down i think to the following: martins live in >the
>>folk/acoustic world and they are pretty. very pretty >sounding.
>>somehow taylors were made in a world in which playing >be-bop or some
>>kind of jazz or blues was more acceptable for reason >unknown to me (i
>>wouldnt pay attention to any of the bolted on neck stuff) >the taylor
Huh? Was this a serious thread? Tell me this is a joke.
Steve.
Bob Hester
In article <19961204021...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
chris...@aol.com wrote:
<snipt>
> But hey, a crap Harmony in the hands of an excellent player will sound
> better than the finest guitar in the hands of a hack.
>
> Chris S.
I know that from personal experience.
--
My opinions only.
Charlie Ouimet
I'll bet in many cases it is not a matter of bias toward Martin, but of taste.
I strongly prefer the sound of my Martin to that of all the Taylors that I
have tried. To me, the Taylors sound a bit thin. But that is just to my
personal individual ears. Someone else may have Taylor ears. I think it is
great that we live in a time when we can sample a variety of guitars until we
find one that matches our own individual tastes.
Charlie O
In article <19961204021...@ladder01.news.aol.com> chris...@aol.com
writes:>From: chris...@aol.com
>Subject: Re: Martin OM21 vs. Taylor 714
>Date: 4 Dec 1996 02:12:36 GMT
>>it comes down i think to the following: martins live in >the
>>folk/acoustic world and they are pretty. very pretty >sounding.
>>somehow taylors were made in a world in which playing >be-bop or some
>>kind of jazz or blues was more acceptable for reason >unknown to me (i
>>wouldnt pay attention to any of the bolted on neck stuff) >the taylor
>>(i have a 612 with single cutaway its small but with a >big big
>>sound) stands alone as far as i can hear.
>It seems that everyone who has weighed in on the side of Martin has been
>playing them for years and are rightly attached to their guitars and sound
>and can't conceive of anything differently. I'm a relatively new player
>with little preconceived bias towards one guitar over another.
>After a few years at hacking away on an Ibanez acoustic I decided I
>deserved something better and went to vintage guitar shows with a musician
>freind of mine and plucked at many a Martin, Guild, Gibson, etc. looking
>for the best sound. I also tried new guitars and one afternoon I found
>myself in a Guitar Center surrounded by Martins and Taylors. I seriously
>thought I would walk out of there or somewhere with a Martin! But the
>Taylor 714 I tried blew every other guitar in that room away, expensive
>Martins included, more expensive Taylors included! Maybe it was just a
>freak of nature, I don't know, but the balance the tone, I've never heard
>one better. And for those of you who dismiss the Taylor and somehow
>lacking compared to a comparable Martin, I can't help thinking its simple
>bias.
rmca
In article <Bob_Hester-...@nnshm599.nash.nt.com>, Bob_H...@nt.com (Bob Hester) says:
>
>
>> But hey, a crap Harmony in the hands of an excellent player will sound
>> better than the finest guitar in the hands of a hack.
True , but the "excellent player" playing
the harmony will be think
"What a piece of shit"
the whole time he's playing it.
Robert
Mike R.
rm...@tenet.edu (rmca) wrote:
>In article <19961204021...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, chris...@aol.com says:
>>
> And for those of you who dismiss the Taylor and somehow
>>lacking compared to a comparable Martin, I can't help thinking its simple
>>bias.
>The Martin / Taylor debate is the staple conversational topic
>of this newsgroup, sort of like debating whose gonna win the
>superbowl in football circles. When it starts up, and I sure as hell
>will vote against that happening, you will see other people
>come out and say there are much better guitars that either Martin
>or Taylor. That's the gist of what always happens, and I'm pointing
>this out so you can be prepared if it does--I would imagine
>there are some holy grails made By Taylor, by Bougeois,
>by Breedlove, by Collings, by Santa Cruz, by Lowden, by Thompson,
>by Goodall, by Weber, by Langehans, by Olson, by Traugott, by
>Manson, by Larrivee, by Klein, by Froggy Bottom, by Gallaghar
>by McGill, by Sobell, and even by Martin.
>Cheers--Robert
This truly is such a sad situation, since both companies make really
fine guitars. I currently own a Taylor, yet I have owned a couple
different Martins in the past, and was very happy with them. I still
play all the Martins that appeal to my eye, every time I make the half
hour trip north to Elderly Instruments.
The other guitar makers? Well, I don't have as much experience with
them, but they certainly have their proponents, and no company gains a
reputation for fine guitars by making crap.
In closing, I think that the people who claim a their Martin is better
than the other guy's Taylor, or vice versa, would be doing the same
thing no matter what the posession- cars, girlfriends, houses, jobs,
etc. Just another chance for an esteem deprived person to feel good
about themselves. :-)
Christopher Dunkle
oui...@neuro.fsu.edu (Charlie Ouimet) wrote:
>I'll bet in many cases it is not a matter of bias toward Martin, but of taste.
> I strongly prefer the sound of my Martin to that of all the Taylors that I
>have tried. To me, the Taylors sound a bit thin. But that is just to my
>personal individual ears. Someone else may have Taylor ears. I think it is
>great that we live in a time when we can sample a variety of guitars until we
>find one that matches our own individual tastes.
Well said. Personally, I grew up on Martins, have always loved the
tone, and when I first tried some Taylors I was quite unimpressed.
More recently, I have been finding Taylors that I like every bit as
much, and sometimes more than the comparable Martins. Either I have
been playing better Taylors or my musical ear has developed a broader
range of tastes. Certainly, the instruments are different, that's as
it should be. Certainly any one good instrument may sound better to
one or more people than another equally good instrument. I am glad
that people have differing preferences; it is what makes variety
possible.
Chris
lpa...@aol.com
In article <587r6m$e...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, rm...@tenet.edu wrote:
>True , but the "excellent player" playing
>the harmony will be think
>"What a piece of shit"
>the whole time he's playing it.
>Robert
I think that this is the most direct, cogent, and poignant comment about
the whole "XX vs. YY" debate. My hat is off to you, Mr. MacArthur. "What
a piece of shit" indeed. A good player can indeed coax a good sound out
of a crappy guitar, but why would he/she want to?
As my old high school gymnastics coach Joe Giallombardo used to say, "Hip,
hip, hooray". Thanks, Robert, keep up the good work.
Larry Pattis
Mike R.
jom...@aol.com wrote:
>You may wish to consider the difference between the OM21's dovetail neck
>joint, a time tested (150+ years!) method vs. Taylor's use of a dry,
>bolt-on neck "joint"- a technique that dates all the way back to the Jerry
>Ford administration.
Tested shmested. Taylor's neck joint is absolutely rock solid.
belittling one guitar to the benefit of another is very small, because
in the end, the sound is what counts. I've owned both brands, and can
say without a moment's hesitation that both companies have dogs as
well as some really wonderful guitars hanging on store walls around
the country.
>The OM21 is one of the best values in the Martin line. Rosewood b&s,spruce
>top, scalloped 1/4" braces gloss laquer, dovetail construction, long
>(25.4") scale and the cool "OM" teardrop pickgaurd. List is $2110 with
>hard case.
>Good luck with whatever you choose.
>Joe McNamara
>CF Martin
>Joe McNamara
schg...@aol.com
>True , but the "excellent player" playing
>the harmony will be think
>"What a piece of shit"
>the whole time he's playing it.
>Robert
This can sure be true, but a couple of possible caveats:
Some great guitars are very rich sounding, with multitudes of overtones,
that they can be much more difficult to tune than simple instruments that
have mostly fundamental. That profusion of overtones can also be difficult
to control. Sometimes a "cheap" or simple instrument can offer valuable
qualities for playing, such as less sustain for faster tunes. Examples:
Paul Brady on the absolutely amazing Paul Brady/Andy Irving disc: I think
that's a Yamaha, and he sounds great!
Eric Schoenberg
Tiburon, CA
mez...@pacbell.net
>>>>>schg...@aol.com wrote:Sometimes a "cheap" or simple instrument can offer valuable
> qualities for playing, such as less sustain for faster tunes...<<<<<
> Eric Schoenberg
> Tiburon, CA<<<<<
Eric, does this mean that you will be building some like this? I'd like
to see a Schoenberg with black and orange sunburst and fake curly maple
flames across the plywood back and top, screwed in bridge, black painted
fingerboard, zero fret, and white spray painted stenciled logo.
Might not be quite up to your standards, but it will get rid of those
nasty overtones. ;]
rmca
In article <19961207183...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, schg...@aol.com says:
>
>In article <587r6m$e...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, rm...@tenet.edu wrote:
That profusion of overtones can also be difficult
>qualities for playing,
I think that's what the relatively inexpensive Martin
000-16 appeals to me.
It has a strong solid fundamental.
Robert
jras...@aol.com
Mr. Schoenburg says:
>This can sure be true, but a couple of possible caveats:
> Some great guitars are very rich sounding, with multitudes of
overtones,
>that they can be much more difficult to tune than simple instruments that
>have mostly fundamental. That profusion of overtones can also be
difficult
>to control. Sometimes a "cheap" or simple instrument can offer valuable
>qualities for playing, such as less sustain for faster tunes. Examples:
>Paul Brady on the absolutely amazing Paul Brady/Andy Irving disc: I think
>that's a Yamaha, and he sounds great!
THis is a good point, and if I can just add a little to it. -- The "best
sounding" guitar is not neccessarily the guitar that records and mikes the
best.
My wife and I have some real killer vintage and new instruments between
us. We have found that when recording and to a lesser extent when playing
through a mike, that we like strings that are as dead as they can be
without losing intonation. I am not the kind of person that spends a
whole lot of time wandering about the physics or reasons for this, but I
think the overtone thing that Mr.Schoenburg mentions has a lot to do with
it .
Maybe if we worked with "state of the art" electronics it would be a
different story, but the dead strings seem to work for us. So I guess what
we are doing is "Dumbing down" our rich full instruments so they record
better. Am I the only one who does it this way?
J.R.
jdavid2
schg...@aol.com wrote:
> Some great guitars are very rich sounding, with multitudes of overtones,
> that they can be much more difficult to tune than simple instruments that
> have mostly fundamental. That profusion of overtones can also be difficult
> to control. Sometimes a "cheap" or simple instrument can offer valuable
> qualities for playing, such as less sustain for faster tunes. Examples:
> Paul Brady on the absolutely amazing Paul Brady/Andy Irving disc: I think
> that's a Yamaha, and he sounds great!
I agree with your basic point, but it does seem to me that if the
overtones are pleasingly and properly balanced, that the nicer guitar
shouldn't be harder to tune. If it really _is_ hard to tune, I might not
think it's really that great an instrument overall, even if certain
aspects of the tone are superior.
It is true that <"cheap" or simple instruments> can sound good when
recorded properly. Many plywood guitars have plenty of top end, and if
you can eq most of the "woof" out you can get a nice sound. I have an
relatively inexpensive Yamaha that plays very nicely in tune, and sounds
_excellent_ when recorded--However, let me pull out one of my old
Martins and you will say, Uh, maybe let's use _that_ instead! If great
tone exists in the guitar, good miking _should_ capture it, and it will
sound better than the cheaper one. IMHO :-)
BTW, the only Schoenberg I've played (it belongs to a friend) is,
I agree with your basic point, but it does seem to me that if the
overtones are pleasingly and properly balanced, that the nicer guitar
shouldn't be harder to tune. If it really _is_ hard to tune, I might not
think it's really that great an instrument overall, even if certain
aspects of the tone are superior. It is true that <"cheap" or simple
instruments> can sound good when recorded properly. Many plywood guitars
have plenty of top end, and if you can eq most of the "woof" out you can
get a nice sound. I have an relatively inexpensive Yamaha that plays
very nicely in tune, and sounds _excellent_ when recorded--However, let
me pull out one of my old Martins and you will say, Uh, maybe let's use
_that_ instead! If great tone exists in the guitar, good miking _should_
capture it, and it will sound better than the cheaper one. IMHO :-)
BTW, the only Schoenberg I've played (it belongs to a friend) is, I
believe, the exact one that was featured in Guitar Player a few years
ago. If I recall correctly it's called "soloist," it is similar in size
to my 000, has a cutaway, and is a _great_ sounding and playing
guitar--really nice.
John David
--
Anthology of Christmas Music: The Christmas Guitar
schg...@aol.com
John David wrote
<<I agree with your basic point, but it does seem to me that if the
overtones are pleasingly and properly balanced, that the nicer guitar
shouldn't be harder to tune. If it really _is_ hard to tune, I might not
think it's really that great an instrument overall, even if certain
aspects of the tone are superior.
It is true that <"cheap" or simple instruments> can sound good when
recorded properly. Many plywood guitars have plenty of top end, and if
you can eq most of the "woof" out you can get a nice sound. I have an
relatively inexpensive Yamaha that plays very nicely in tune, and sounds
_excellent_ when recorded--However, let me pull out one of my old
Martins and you will say, Uh, maybe let's use _that_ instead! If great
tone exists in the guitar, good miking _should_ capture it, and it will
sound better than the cheaper one. IMHO :-)>>
I certainly agree That properly recorded, there's nothing like a great
instrument for putting great sounds onto tape (hard drive?). I'm just
recalling the experience of also enjoying playing some cheapies that were
set up real well, andf seemed to play a lot faster and tune a lot easier
than my own guitars. Of course, that doesn't stop me from enjoying the
hell out a beautiful sounding instrument with overtones ringing in all
directions! A slow, beautiful melody in dropped D with full chords and
very rich tone coming out of, say, a 1929 000-28, that's bliss!
Eric Schoenberg
Tiburon, CA
Chifuru Noda
: John David wrote
: I agree with your basic point, but it does seem to me that if the
: overtones are pleasingly and properly balanced, that the nicer guitar
: shouldn't be harder to tune.
There is a phenomenon called "anharmonicity". When a string is
plucked, you generate several frequencies. The lowest is called
"fundamental" and there are "overtones". In "ideal" (read
"simplistic") picture, the frequency of the first overtone is exactly
twice of the fundamental. The reality is, due to the stiffness of the
string, the freq. of the first overtone is a little bit higher than
the twice the fundamental freq. The deviation depends on the string
diameter and thickness, and this happens to all overtones.
When you tune the open A string to 110 Hz, the ideal string would
produce overtones at 220 Hz, 440 Hz, 880 Hz etc (ignore other
frequencies for the sake of simplicity). The real string, for example,
has frequencies like 220.6 Hz, 441.1 Hz, 882.4 Hz, etc.
If the guitar does not have good response in high frequencies, you
won't hear much of 882.4 Hz. On the other hand, on a "good" guitar,
the overtone response will let you hear 882.4 Hz which your ears (and
electric tuners) will say "it's off!" even though the fundamental is
tuned correctly.
I think this is what Eric meant when he said "'good' guitars with rich
harmonics (overtones) are harder to tune"
Cheerio
Chief
Al Sato
cn...@kent.kent.edu (Chifuru Noda) wrote:
>If the guitar does not have good response in high frequencies, you
>won't hear much of 882.4 Hz. On the other hand, on a "good" guitar,
>the overtone response will let you hear 882.4 Hz which your ears (and
>electric tuners) will say "it's off!" even though the fundamental is
>tuned correctly.
>I think this is what Eric meant when he said "'good' guitars with rich
>harmonics (overtones) are harder to tune"
>Cheerio
>Chief
Thank you, Chief, for a most informative post. I've wondered about
this myself, why my mahogany guitar seems easiest to tune. It is the
least "harmonically rich" of my guitars, although very smooth and
sweet. Perhaps also it's why I feel it's the least demanding to play.
I've learned something new today!
Al
Bob Alman
cn...@kent.kent.edu (Chifuru Noda) wrote:
>If the guitar does not have good response in high frequencies, you
>won't hear much of 882.4 Hz. On the other hand, on a "good" guitar,
>the overtone response will let you hear 882.4 Hz which your ears (and
>electric tuners) will say "it's off!" even though the fundamental is
>tuned correctly.
>I think this is what Eric meant when he said "'good' guitars with rich
>harmonics (overtones) are harder to tune"
To reduce the problem of tuning guitars with a lot of harmonic content,
especially when using electronic tuners, try plucking the string with
your finger at the 12th fret to reinforce as much of the fundamental
as possible. If the string is struck away from the midpoint of the
string, the asymmetry will induce more harmonics. Struck in the center,
the sound contains more of the fundamental. This will allow the tuner
a greater chance of locking on the fundamental since it will be
considerably greater in amplitude. When you fret a note, the point
where you pluck the string will need to be adjusted to the new
midpoint between the bridge and the fret.
--
Bob Alman
g...@sonic.net
Rick
schg...@aol.com wrote:
On the issue of "excessive" overtones...
I had a Taylor 814C for a while. The upper overtones were so
prominent that I couldn't sing comfortably while playing. The guitar
had a beautiful, shimmering sound--but I play only to sing. I felt it
hard to find the melody. I can do a capella better than with that
guitar. In the hands of a more talented singer/player, it would
probably be great.
I ended up with a Goodall GC (rosewood/englemann). The guitar has
just enough brightness to be musically complex, but the chord notes
stay more separated. It has a richer, warmer tone than others I've
tried. James Goodall calls it the "O" sound, as compared to the "E"
sound of the Taylor/Martin/Santa Cruz school. I picked the guitar as
the perfect instrument to sing with.
Ever run across this impression from other players/singers?
Rick
jdavid2
Chifuru Noda wrote:
<snip>
>
> I think this is what Eric meant when he said "'good' guitars with rich
> harmonics (overtones) are harder to tune"
Hi Chief,
That's a nice overview of "anharmonicity." Yes, I did think Eric was
referring to the harmonic overtones interfering with getting in tune
easily.
>>If the guitar does not have good response in high frequencies, you
won't hear much of 882.4 Hz. On the other hand, on a "good" guitar,
the overtone response will let you hear 882.4 Hz which your ears (and
electric tuners) will say "it's off!" even though the fundamental is
tuned correctly.
Your post seems to say all "good" guitars should have this problem. I
am, of course, just speaking from my own personal experience, but I have
not found that to be the case. I have usually found just the opposite:
the better the instrument, the _easier_ it is to get it "in tune" (given
all the other technical details of proper set up etc.), and the better
it sounds when it gets there. :-)
JD
Chifuru Noda
jdavid2 (mont...@pair.com) wrote:
: Your post seems to say all "good" guitars should have this problem.
I should say "harmonically rich" guitars are harder to tune than
"guitars with strong fundamental" because of the anharmonicity. I
probably should not have used "good/bad" guitars.
: I have usually found just the opposite:
: the better the instrument, the _easier_ it is to get it "in tune" (given
: all the other technical details of proper set up etc.), and the better
: it sounds when it gets there. :-)
There are other factors (such as ideal vs well-tempered scale etc) and
I will not generalize what I wrote too far. From my experience,
rosewood guitars produce more overtones and thus are harder to
tune. However, the difficulty we're talking about is very subtle and
my guitar is out of tune due to my "tuning challenged" ears, not by
overtones :-(
Cheerio
Chief
kerry brooks
ri...@value.net (Rick) writes:
>On the issue of "excessive" overtones...
>I had a Taylor 814C for a while. The upper overtones were so
>prominent that I couldn't sing comfortably while playing. The guitar
>had a beautiful, shimmering sound--but I play only to sing. I felt it
>I ended up with a Goodall GC (rosewood/englemann). The guitar has
>just enough brightness to be musically complex, but the chord notes
>stay more separated. It has a richer, warmer tone than others I've
>tried. James Goodall calls it the "O" sound, as compared to the "E"
>sound of the Taylor/Martin/Santa Cruz school. I picked the guitar as
>the perfect instrument to sing with.
>Ever run across this impression from other players/singers?
>Rick
I had a similar experience with 'overtones.' I found that these things
really matter, and that they in fact can conflict with musical styles.
What others on this group have posted is true -- that some styles 'go'
with lots of shimmering overtones (such as the composed solo acoustic style
played by noted members of rmmga).
Personally, I found that what my 'inner' ear has preferred 'lo these many
years' is clear, balanced fundamentals, with a fairly rapid dropping off/decay of the sounded notes. I found I much prefer this tonal scenario to lingering
albeit beautiful tones. My brief marraige to such a shimmering beauty
resulted in an amicable divorce -- and I was surprised that I felt I needed
to go that far, that I really couldn't 'work things out' tone wise.
Soneone on rmmga recently noted that lingering
overtones could tend to conflict with rapid single-note styles. I found this
to be true in the sense that notes tend to 'run-into' eaach other. You
can certainly damp them with the right hand, but I found I didn't want to have
to do this all the time.
As some others have recently noted, (perhaps L Pattis) one neat
characteristic of 12 fret 000 models may be that more mass of fingerboard
may tend to produce this damping effect. I think the 12 fret 000 was
compared to a piano with the foot pedals 'off,' while guitars with
big bodies and lots of overtones
could be considered to have the foot pedal 'on.'
This all has to be totally dependent upon the player's style and
preferences. There is no way guitar should be considered 'bad' in this
sense, just unsuitable for a particular style or ear.
Personally, I now have an all mahogany 000 12-fret. It is just right
for me.
Kerry Brooks
SchGuitar
This discussion has been fascinating and a good demonstration of the
great value of the newsgroup. I've always been aware of the problem but
kind of in the dark. I have a suspicion that 12-fret 000's might have more
of the anharmonicity (what is that word again?) but maybe this comes from
the early guitars, which comprise most of my experience. I'm looking
forward to trying the idea of plucking the string in the middle to pick up
more of the fundamental.
By the way: hi, Chief! I somehow missed your post about the 883.x cps
overtone, but think I got the gist from other resonder's quotes.
Eric Schoenberg
Tiburon, CA
Adam Gershon
It has been my guess that the 12-frets would have LESS of this
effect based on my VERY LIMITED listening experience. I guessed
that it had something to do with the fact that the scale was divided
in half between the soundboard and the neck. I like the sound of
these guitars and am in the process of convincing myself to take the
plunge.
My news server/reader messes up my return address, I am
nny...@ny.ubs.com Adam Gershon
P.S. I am strictly an interested rank amateur.
SchGuitar (schg...@aol.com) wrote:
: This discussion has been fascinating and a good demonstration of the
dicks...@aol.com
In article <19961211191...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
schg...@aol.com (SchGuitar) writes:
>By the way: hi, Chief! I somehow missed your post about the 883.x cps
>overtone, but think I got the gist from other resonder's quotes.
> Eric Schoenberg
Hey Eric,
I also did not receive Chief's post. AOL sometimes loses postings in
cyberspace and they never do return. Some posts eventually show up a few
days later, but usually if they don't appear in the first couple of days,
they never do. I have contacted them about it, but like any super-large
entity, they are reluctant to believe that there is any problem.
Perhaps Chief could repost it, as I'm not sure that I am as good at
"gisting" as you are.
Dick Schneiders DickS...@aol.com
Dick Schneiders
Chifuru Noda
Dicks...@aol.com wrote:
: I also did not receive Chief's post.
: Perhaps Chief could repost it
Sure thing (as long as I don't get flamed for posting the same stuff
twice :-)
Also I'd like to add
(1) I should not have used the adjective
"good/bad". I'm talking about "guitar with strong overtones vs with
strong fundamental"
(2) I illustrated my point by using some numbers,
which were not theoretically computed. The anharmonicities depend on
the string type, string tension, amplitude, etc. They are always
higher than what you'd expect for an ideal string but the deviations
vary.
(3) The theory of string vibration on an actual guitar is a lot
more complicated than what I wrote. There are things like phases of
vibrations; temperament and the interaction of overtones from two
strings; time-decay of overtones.
What I'm saying is "don't trust me too much :-)"
Cheerio
Chief (my address should be cn...@kent.edu)
****** I can't paste my original post in here. This emacs editor is
horrible. I will repost it in a separate file. Sorry...
Chifuru Noda
This is a repost of my earlier post. It got lost somewhere between
Ohio and Kansas, apparently.
---- my original post ------
: John David wrote
: I agree with your basic point, but it does seem to me that if the
: overtones are pleasingly and properly balanced, that the nicer guitar
: shouldn't be harder to tune.
There is a phenomenon called "anharmonicity". When a string is
plucked, you generate several frequencies. The lowest is called
"fundamental" and there are "overtones". In "ideal" (read
"simplistic") picture, the frequency of the first overtone is exactly
twice of the fundamental. The reality is, due to the stiffness of the
string, the freq. of the first overtone is a little bit higher than
the twice the fundamental freq. The deviation depends on the string
diameter and thickness, and this happens to all overtones.
When you tune the open A string to 110 Hz, the ideal string would
produce overtones at 220 Hz, 440 Hz, 880 Hz etc (ignore other
frequencies for the sake of simplicity). The real string, for example,
has frequencies like 220.6 Hz, 441.1 Hz, 882.4 Hz, etc.
If the guitar does not have good response in high frequencies, you
won't hear much of 882.4 Hz. On the other hand, on a "good" guitar,
the overtone response will let you hear 882.4 Hz which your ears (and
electric tuners) will say "it's off!" even though the fundamental is
tuned correctly.
I think this is what Eric meant when he said "'good' guitars with rich
harmonics (overtones) are harder to tune"
Cheerio
Chief
Tom Jenkins
Man, am I glad that my guitar is not one of those "good" ones. ;-)
Chief, seriously, doesn't the string(s) play a part of this as well?
Wound and none wound strings when viewed after being plucked, can you
not actually see these frequencies of vibrations (overtones)? With new
strings, these multiple frequencies are more pronounced on a given
string, and as the string(s) reach their usefull life these frequencies
either die out or they become very unstable (dead string(s)). Or how
about in determining if the core or wrap of a wound string has slipped?
What I have observed on a well balanced string, there are multiple
vibrations occuring. One big one (maybe the prodominate one) in the
middle of the length, and smaller, equally matched at equal distances
on each side of the middle big one, and so on. Is this part of the
overtones? I would think so.
I use this technique after restringing to verify the string(s)
balance/trueness and later to determine if the string is shot/dead. Am
I off in my observations?
Yes, at least IMHO, differant gauges and types of strings will behave
differantly. Even within the same style and gauges on the same guitar.
Better made strings are usally more uniform though.
Maybe this is just a string thing or maybe it is both the string and a
"good" guitar thing? Probably the later? :-)
What do you think?
--
Happy trails...
Tom Jenkins
Why? How? You bet! Lets do it...
Jim Wintermyre
> There is a phenomenon called "anharmonicity". When a string is
> plucked, you generate several frequencies. The lowest is called
> "fundamental" and there are "overtones". In "ideal" (read
> "simplistic") picture, the frequency of the first overtone is exactly
I believe that's "inharmonicity"... Anyway, there's an article called
"Inharmonicity of wound guitar strings" or something like that in one
of the issues of the Journal of Guitar Acoustics. BTW, I just bought
the JGA compilation that Tim White posted about here a few weeks ago,
and there's some great stuff in there.
Jim
Chifuru Noda
I wrote:
: > There is a phenomenon called "anharmonicity".
Jim Wintermyre (winte...@rl.af.mil) wrote:
: I believe that's "inharmonicity"...
Just for the record, I have seen "inharmonicity" occasionally but
"anharmonicity" appears more frequently. In quantum mechanics and the
theory of molecular vibration, it is always "anharmonicity".
Cheerio
Chief
Al Sato
Hey, maybe we can start a whole thread on quantum guitar! Then we can
attribute our mistakes to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for
guitars: the very act of listening to your music causes the music to
change!
Al
david_means
In article <32B99D...@centtech.com>, Al says...
That explains why I don't make mistakes when I don't listen to myself play!
Wow, it boggles...
Dave Means
dme...@fcc.gov
jdavid2
> >attribute our mistakes to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for
> >guitars: the very act of listening to your music causes the music to
> >change!
> >
> >Al
>
> That explains why I don't make mistakes when I don't listen to myself play!
> Wow, it boggles...
I think that it only works if there's no one _else_ listening either.:-)