making cheap guitars awesome

[EDX]

Re: making cheap guitars awesome

i would like to high-light the 7th point of the guide, since it doesn't only apply to cheap guitars, also to expensive bolt-ons since with time wood can dry and shrink, the 0 to 5° angle at the neck jonit is crucial, kramersteen can explain this, since well, he's a luthier he must know that

before shimming my v at the lowest action in the 12 fret was 4mm, and even the there was some fret buzz, while at the 22th fret the action was like 8mm (from top of fret to bottom of the string), after shimming with paper the action and intonation improved considerably, now at the 12 fret the action is 2.5mm on the low E and 2mm on the high E, at the 22 fret the action for the low E is 3mm and the high E is 2.5, the whole thing intonates better, before playing a 3 strings power chord in tune was a little hard, now more complex chords intonate, maybe not prefectly but good enough

[kramersteen]

Re: making cheap guitars awesome

i would like to high-light the 7th point of the guide, since it doesn't only apply to cheap guitars, also to expensive bolt-ons since with time wood can dry and shrink, the 0 to 5° angle at the neck jonit is crucial, kramersteen can explain this, since well, he's a luthier he must know that

I don't want to explain anything. The main reason being is i don't really know all that much

Our forum friend chaoz is the man He says the least but knows the most. His only downside is he loves sheep.

[EDX]

Re: making cheap guitars awesome

haha, well understood dude, you know the how but not the why right?

now i want to see how that charvel wents finished

[greekdude]

Re: making cheap guitars awesome

There's just no evidence to back up this good wood / bad wood talk.

There is : https://www.unibw.de/lrt4/mechanik/m...r/deadspots-en . There *are* good woods and woods that suck the tone. And when the woods suck the tone, then no hardware upgrade will bring it back. This is not necessarily connected with price, but woods with a uniform tonal response (or to say it better : lack of it) provide a more pleasant and rich experience all over the fretboard.

[DreX]

Re: making cheap guitars awesome

There is : https://www.unibw.de/lrt4/mechanik/m...r/deadspots-en . There *are* good woods and woods that suck the tone. And when the woods suck the tone, then no hardware upgrade will bring it back. This is not necessarily connected with price, but woods with a uniform tonal response (or to say it better : lack of it) provide a more pleasant and rich experience all over the fretboard.

There is talk in there about the resonant relationship between the neck and body (I'd like to see what they say about using a slide, are there dead spots when using a slide?) but there's absolutely nothing about the relative qualities of wood, to say that one has more dead spots or another, but rather any guitar will have a dead spot and question is simply as to where it will be. Moreover, this doesn't begin to prove that Fender or Gibson has a wood selection process that pays any respect to the principles therein. I think this is case where the silence is telling. If Fender and Gibson had a fancy rigorous bullet proof process of selecting "tone woods", you'd see it cited in every tone wood debate. They say nothing because there is nothing to be said.

[greekdude]

Re: making cheap guitars awesome

There is talk in there about the resonant relationship between the neck and body (I'd like to see what they say about using a slide, are there dead spots when using a slide?) but there's absolutely nothing about the relative qualities of wood, to say that one has more dead spots or another, but rather any guitar will have a dead spot and question is simply as to where it will be. Moreover, this doesn't begin to prove that Fender or Gibson has a wood selection process that pays any respect to the principles therein. I think this is case where the silence is telling. If Fender and Gibson had a fancy rigorous bullet proof process of selecting "tone woods", you'd see it cited in every tone wood debate. They say nothing because there is nothing to be said.

I don't personally care what Fender or Gibson do or where do they get their woods from. Maybe selecting the right woods can be so costly that I begin to think that if Gibson or Fender just followed your mindset "oh well woods don't matter that much, its all subjective, personal preference, etc" they would save themselves from a lot of work. And that is actually what they do : they rarely present anything specific like a conductance chart of each instrument, like e.g. car makers publish revs/horsepower/torque charts.
Now back to the paper. The paper is far from being a complete study. But explains several useful points that may lead to further research. In the paper only strats, well one strat, are mentioned, but they set the foundations for a methodology for any guitar. Your point about using a slide, or even a natural or artificial harmonic is absolutely valid, and a full sustain study should include all those parameters. I dont wanna derail this thread, but as of late (I am 45+) I am 100% convinced that woods are the most important ingredient of the tone of a guitar. The wood vibrates, the frequency and magnitude of the vibration can completely kill the note, or convert it to an harmonic or just be so weak that it lets the note sustain until it dies from natural death. All these should be taken into account : fret, tension, frequency, string length, method (pick, slide, artificial harmonic, natural harmonic), bend or not, and should be done for all those combinations and for several "known" wood configurations (preferably with more than one representative from each configuration : two LPs, two Strats, two Basswood Ibanez's, two maple neckthroughs, etc).

[Snake Aces]

Re: making cheap guitars awesome

There is talk in there about the resonant relationship between the neck and body (I'd like to see what they say about using a slide, are there dead spots when using a slide?) but there's absolutely nothing about the relative qualities of wood, to say that one has more dead spots or another, but rather any guitar will have a dead spot and question is simply as to where it will be. Moreover, this doesn't begin to prove that Fender or Gibson has a wood selection process that pays any respect to the principles therein. I think this is case where the silence is telling. If Fender and Gibson had a fancy rigorous bullet proof process of selecting "tone woods", you'd see it cited in every tone wood debate. They say nothing because there is nothing to be said.

Tonewoods? Is that you?

[Red_Label]

Re: making cheap guitars awesome

There's just no evidence to back up this good wood / bad wood talk. Most people think that just because something cost more it must be better, they don't know how, just know that it must be. It's partly blind faith, partly to save us from the hassle of investigating production processes and finer technical points every single time we're faced with a choice as a consumer. It's much easier to look at the price and make a snap judgement about quality. The domestic makers want you to believe they hand select "tone woods", I see jewelry stores claim they hand pick diamonds, and grocers claim they hand pick produce, to assure us consumers they are giving us the best. This is probably true to the extent that someone physically has to lift these items with their hands somewhere along the way. We debate about "tone woods" on a regular basis, and you never see industry insiders chime in to explain how they pick the best sounding chuck of wood for a premium Strat, and it's not a trade secret, it's that the truth of the matter would only serve to undermine their sales pitch.



That's a saying that sometimes holds true, and should in a perfect world, but this is especially not true in the case of guitars. First, it's at odds with the widely agreed upon concept of diminishing returns in relation to higher price points. You get what you pay for up to a certain price point, beyond which you to pay a lot more and receive less. Second, when a portion of the guitar's price is owed to the higher cost of labor in a specific locale, as an unavoidable cost, apart from from luthiery skills... are you really "getting" more of anything? Third, often you pay extra for a name, does getting a "name" constitute "getting what you pay for"? Not just buying "Gibson", but paying an extra $100 - $2000 for a "Limited Edition", an ultra-deluxe-anniversary model, etc. It just goes to show that price points are a function of supply and demand, divorced from intrinsic value.

Having owned too many guitars to list here in the past 30 years... from the cheapest of Squires, to American PRS, Gibson, Fender, Anderson, Music Man, etc... I stand by my statements. One of my best friends has run one of my local music shops for over 25 years. We are total gear junkies. We play and try EVERYTHING we can get our hands-on. We're not gear snobs, in the sense that we get excited about a 300-series Ltd axe (I've owned NINE Ltds), and we get excited about Tom Anderson guitars (he owns four, I own one). I appreciate it ALL for what it is. But IN GENERAL, do YOU get what you pay for. Sure... there are diminishing returns on the higher-end stuff. But don't kid yourself here... you could spend $3K in upgrades on a $500 import... and it will NOT be the same as my $3,500 Anderson Drop Top. I've also owned at least a half dozen Epiphone LPs, and they weren't as good as the several Gibson LPs that I've owned. Nor were the PRS SE models as good as the pair of Custom 24s that I owned. Not even with the various upgrades I did to all of these imports. I would RATHER spend my money on great amps then guitars, because the amp IS more important in the tone chain than the guitar IMO. But I finally had to admit to myself that when I start with a higher end guitar in the first place... the road to "perfection" (for me) is always MUCH shorter than starting with an import. The sole exception for me has been the ESP Eclipses that I've owned. They are obviously imports, that performed as well as any American stuff I've owned.

Btw... I just brought home a Yamaha Pacifica 611 import from my friend's shop. I've always wanted a decent Pacifica, and I'm very happy with this one. I traded an American Deluxe strat with compound fingerboard for it (and an Ibanez Ergodyne 5-string bass for my daughter). The Strat never really spoke to me on a tone level. So I'm not down on imports or lower-end guitars AT ALL. But there ARE in fact differences in how the higher-end stuff is made and how the cheaper stuff is made. Having said that... a guitar HAS to speak to me to stick around for a while. And whether I really connect with it has nothing to do with where it's made, and everything to do with whatever "vibe" I get from it. Some nearly flawless American-made guitars I never really connected with, while some of the less expensive imports I did. But I could always feel the difference and hear it. Sometimes "flawless" comes across as sterile and lifeless. And sometimes some cheapo, beat-to-hell pawn shop find seems magical in my hands. But that's no guarantee.

Anyways... I take NO issue with anyone's preferences regarding guitars. But based on my experience, I do believe more than ever... that you generally DO get what you pay for. Many players can make cheap, crappy guitars sound great. But they could make the "good stuff" sound even better (even if marginally). I look at a gear-junkie like Bonamassa. The guy can play anything he wants. And he can make it sound good. But he definitely prefers the higher-end stuff overall. And it's not just because of the logo/label/year. It's because he senses the differences and prefers them.

[Securb]

Re: making cheap guitars awesome

Many players can make cheap, crappy guitars sound great. But they could make the "good stuff" sound even better (even if marginally).

That is a very objective option. Your premise assumes a guy playing an inexpensive guitar has never played a "better" ax and doesn't know what they are missing. Reggie Wooten plays a Squire, The Beatles played Epiphones (Paul happens to own one of the rarest 59 Les Pauls on the planet), Billy Joe Armstrong plays low end Gibsons. The list goes on. Guitars are tools, not everyone needs or wants a $3000 tool to get the job done. I have plenty of $2000+ guitars but find sometimes one of my $500 imports is a better axe for the job.

[Detroitblues]

Re: making cheap guitars awesome

Hmm... Let's see here...

Buy a beat up Fender Vintage Modified Squire Telecaster Custom for $135- Check
Replace missing saddles with steel Fender Saddles- Check
Replace neck with an Allpart Boatneck w/ Vintage Tuners- Check
Replace Bridge Pickup with Mini-Filtron- Check
Replace Pots with CTS Pots- Check
Refinish body- Check

Rock out- Check

One helluva Telecaster Custom

[Red_Label]

Re: making cheap guitars awesome

That is a very objective option. Your premise assumes a guy playing an inexpensive guitar has never played a "better" ax and doesn't know what they are missing. Reggie Wooten plays a Squire, The Beatles played Epiphones (Paul happens to own one of the rarest 59 Les Pauls on the planet), Billy Joe Armstrong plays low end Gibsons. The list goes on. Guitars are tools, not everyone needs or wants a $3000 tool to get the job done. I have plenty of $2000+ guitars but find sometimes one of my $500 imports is a better axe for the job.

Way to cut one sentence out of everything I wrote and ignore the rest. Especially the part where I mentioned the word "generally". There are exceptions to just about EVERY cliche, stereo-type, rule, etc.

[Red_Label]

Re: making cheap guitars awesome

LOL... you guys win... your modded Squires and Epiphones are every bit as good of instruments as most Fenders, Gibsons, etc. Those of us who've played plenty of both ends of the scale and choose the more expensive stuff probably only do it because we've become members of the "More Expensive Club" and want to look down on those who haven't attained such lofty heights as we. It probably has little to do with better/more-consistent build quality, better choices in woods and construction, better hardware, etc... and more with our mindless response to this consumer-based society run amok. We have been fools, easily separated from our money by shiny bling and fancy logos.

[DreX]

Re: making cheap guitars awesome

Those of us who've played plenty of both ends of the scale ...

You act like you've got an exclusive grip on the "played both ends of the scale" card. Most of us have not only played both, but own many examples of both.

The reason for people to puff up their premium guitars beyond what is reasonable is perfectly understandable: you want to believe the extra money you've spent over the years on domestic craftsmanship has not been a waste. Nobody likes to believe they've wasted their money.

[Securb]

Re: making cheap guitars awesome

Cheap, modded and awesome. I would put this MIM Strat up against a MIA Strat any day of the week.

[treyhaislip]

Re: making cheap guitars awesome

Guitars are tools, not everyone needs or wants a $3000 tool to get the job done. I have plenty of $2000+ guitars but find sometimes one of my $500 imports is a better axe for the job.

When using a saw do you always have to use diamond tipped blades? Titanium drill bits? Etc. Whatever tool gets the job done is true, same with cars. The cheapest Kia will get you from A to B just like a Rolls Royce will...does it mean a Kia is just as good? No, just that if your only condition is to get from A to B then they both do that. And personal preference is the beauty of the free enterprise–some people just need a low cost tool to get it done while others want more options.