Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

[Phantasmagoria]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

No offence meant but tell you what, maybe some people can't tell a pimped cookie cutter sweat shop special from an expertly handcrafted instrument. Quite possible that numerous people lack the experience or the subtlety it takes to appreciate an oeuvre of outstanding quality but calling it indistinguishable seems a bit of a hyperbole.

None taken..but only because I stand by what I said. Blind test = no one tells the difference/not in the same room/not in a mix. Live? ..lol..forget it

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

Google it.

Finish issues, tuning stability issues..they're all there (with pics), so yup you're lucky.

Does'nt matter to me though..I would'nt buy them if they were flawless. I just don't care for the way they feel or look. One man's gorgeous is another man's gaudy & plug-ugly.

As I've said before, I have never met anyone in my 20 years of playing who had a bad Gibson with the issues you mentioned. I know a lot of guys online who will complain about everything (the same ones who writes a negative review about how gas saving cars such as the Prius are terrible because they lack fast acceleration) and I know from personal experience how rumors spread. But when it comes down to it, the people I've met, jammed/gigged with, actually saw that they owned a Gibson, etc. did not have the issues you are talking about. Tuning Stability Issues? I've actually loved Gibson Les Pauls for their tuning stability (and guitars that are not properly setup, be it cheap or expensive, will have tuning issues.) Finish issues? Haven't seen one with finish issues in person–in the age of photoshop I would prefer to actually see at least one terrible finish in person...simple lighting tricks can make a bad finish look awesome and a good finish look terrible.

So you won't buy them–that's your thing. Look and feel is a very personal thing (which is why I love Warmoth and Musikraft as I have a variety of options to choose from rather than a pre-determined product.)

I've got an MIJ Ibby & a YJM Strat...that's far enough down the $$$ road to go for me. I've played $3000 Gibson's & PRS's that probably cost way more. I would rather play my $300 Cort's (they're way more comfortable, more stable, tuning-wise, have faster necks, more frets, easier upper fret access, bolt necks = snappier & livelier, feel better and sound as sweet) ..go figure.

Bottom line: Blind test = no one tells the difference.

So comparing a bolt-on neck guitar to a Gibson? That's not a fair assessment. Feel, fret access, more frets, etc. those are all design things that you prefer that are not part of Gibson builds right now (they hired Wayne Charvel during the late 80's or so to build stuff bolt on neck shredders but got sued by Jackson.) Way more comfortable? To you yes, but to others no.

Blind test for comfort? Blind test for tuning stability? Blind test for faster necks with easier upper fret access and more frets? Those are personal preferences and no offense, to claim one could or couldn't tell those apart in a blind test is just plain silly.

A great guitar player will sound great on any decent guitar. But guitars can be summed up as either a hobby or a tool. Hobby includes anyone from weekend warriors to beginners to collectors etc. and tools are for those who make a living off of it (ultimately one could say guitars are tools for hobbies but hopefully you catch my drift lol)

Whether it is a tool or hobby or whatever it is–you have to find what works best for you. But to blast Gibson for these things is just silly. They charge what the market will allow–if no one was buying their stuff then they would either go out of business or lower their prices/restructure their pricing. Simple economics.

How do you take a picture of a tuning stability issue?

Ha! I would like to see that! lol

The pics are of finish issues & people are cribbing about tuning issues.

If your's are wonderful in every way..I'm happy for you man.

I'm not the one saying 'X' guitar will obviously play less well & sound crappier than 'Y' because of what it cost.

..That would be you guys..

And everything on the internet is true?

I don't recall people here saying that...where are you reading it?

I mentioned a personal example: pickup a Martin HD28 and then try my Eastman E8D–the Eastman is nice for the price but the Martin is golden But guitars are mainly a hobby, I work for a living not make music to pay the bills, and I personally cannot justify the price difference between my Eastman and the Martin. I never said the lower priced stuff will "play less well & sound crappier"

Nope. I'm not saying that, either. There are lots of good guitars at good price points. I'm just saying I don't believe the Internet negativity about Gibson.

Yup, if you believe everything that is on the internet then take cover because the sky is falling among other things

+1. There are guitars designs we like and are more comfortable with, regardless of their cost.

+1 to this statement

 

[Phantasmagoria]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

As I've said before, I have never met anyone in my 20 years of playing who had a bad Gibson with the issues you mentioned. I know a lot of guys online who will complain about everything (the same ones who writes a negative review about how gas saving cars such as the Prius are terrible because they lack fast acceleration) and I know from personal experience how rumors spread. But when it comes down to it, the people I've met, jammed/gigged with, actually saw that they owned a Gibson, etc. did not have the issues you are talking about. Tuning Stability Issues? I've actually loved Gibson Les Pauls for their tuning stability (and guitars that are not properly setup, be it cheap or expensive, will have tuning issues.) Finish issues? Haven't seen one with finish issues in person–in the age of photoshop I would prefer to actually see at least one terrible finish in person...simple lighting tricks can make a bad finish look awesome and a good finish look terrible.

So you like Les Paul's and choose not believe what's said on the internet...no problem. I don't own one, don't want to and have little-to-no interest in them. I've said that repeatedly. I'm just pointing out that people do complain about them (just like people who complain about cheapies or "shredsticks" or "pointies" or whatever) Whether any of that stuff is true or not I have no way of verifying & honestly don't care...I'm just pointing out that (justifiably or unjustly..whatever it may be..) they don't really have a blemish-free reputation for quality.

Also, I used Gibson's as an example of expensive guitars (I also mentioned PRS's) and there are plenty more..so my issue is cheap Vs expensive not cheap vs. Gibson

So you won't buy them–that's your thing. Look and feel is a very personal thing.

^ Exactly what I said.

So comparing a bolt-on neck guitar to a Gibson? That's not a fair assessment. Feel, fret access, more frets, etc. those are all design things that you prefer that are not part of Gibson builds right now (they hired Wayne Charvel during the late 80's or so to build stuff bolt on neck shredders but got sued by Jackson.) Way more comfortable? To you yes, but to others no.

As far as the bolt on/more frets/faster neck/easier access etc thing goes..I clearly mentioned that was my personal preference in guitars and the reason why I have no interest in LP's..that's all.

Blind test for comfort? Blind test for tuning stability? Blind test for faster necks with easier upper fret access and more frets? Those are personal preferences and no offense, to claim one could or couldn't tell those apart in a blind test is just plain silly.

I did'nt mention any of that stuff as the criteria for a blind test.

I mean tone-wise..it's far from a given that an expensive guitar is universally going to sound "better" (which is highly subjective anyway) than a mid level guitar.Not that I think it should come to that. I'm speaking figuratively. An expensive guitar does'nt need to sound "better" than a cheap one by virtue of it's cost. No one's going to make me change my mind on that...but keep trying if you like.

A great guitar player will sound great on any decent guitar

Exactly. My point in a nutshell. He/she won't need a 10k guitar for that.

But guitars can be summed up as either a hobby or a tool. Hobby includes anyone from weekend warriors to beginners to collectors etc. and tools are for those who make a living off of it (ultimately one could say guitars are tools for hobbies but hopefully you catch my drift lol)

Whether it is a tool or hobby or whatever it is–you have to find what works best for you. But to blast Gibson for these things is just silly. They charge what the market will allow–if no one was buying their stuff then they would either go out of business or lower their prices/restructure their pricing. Simple economics.

Sure ..and as I pointed out (& everyone subsequently agreed to) ..your paying more for their lawsuits/advertising/high wages/high overheads/healthy profit margins etc than for actual input/materials/quality..but ultimately that name on the headstock is probably what makes it all worth it.

Ha! I would like to see that! lol

LP with broken tuners (?) lol ..or one of their famous broken headstocks?

And everything on the internet is true?

I don't recall people here saying that...where are you reading it?

lol, you need to look through this thread again. Lots of folk have said cheap guitars can't ever measure up to expensive ones...lol..that's pretty much been the theme of the thread. Not sure how you could've missed it.

I mentioned a personal example: pickup a Martin HD28 and then try my Eastman E8D–the Eastman is nice for the price but the Martin is golden But guitars are mainly a hobby, I work for a living not make music to pay the bills, and I personally cannot justify the price difference between my Eastman and the Martin. I never said the lower priced stuff will "play less well & sound crappier"

Enough folk in this thread have scoffed at the idea that it won't.

I've pretty much said what I wanted to..a cheap guitar that's set up right in the right hands can sound as good as an expensive one. period. I'm sticking with that.

So if anyone wants to keep repeating themselves & then patting each other on the back or whatever lol..knock yourselves out

 

[Snake Aces]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

Yawn. It's great when somebody targets Gibson and then has to backpedal a bit. It's all good to have the cheap vs. expensive conversation but to always target Gibson gets to be so lame and repetitive. Good for you for tossin' PRS out there as well *sarcasm*.

 

[Phantasmagoria]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

I think it's obvious who's done the back-pedalling ..read the thread

..nice that you found a way to pat yourself on the back about it *more sarcasm*

 

[Snake Aces]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

I think it's obvious who's done the back-pedalling ..read the thread

..nice that you found a way to pat yourself on the back about it *more sarcasm*

Seriously, I did read the thread and it's clear who has an agenda. So, go ahead and pat yourself on the back for joining the internet forces against Gibson. It's trendy to bash them so why not join in!

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

So you like Les Paul's and choose not believe what's said on the internet...no problem.

...and you believe everything you read on the internet?...I will leave that sillyness with this article

I personally prefer Strats, have several Warmoth and Musikraft builds because I prefer options that are not common (rare woods such as Walnut, Strat necks with Gibson scales, hand rubbed oil finishes, etc.)

I don't own one, don't want to and have little-to-no interest in them. I've said that repeatedly. I'm just pointing out that people do complain about them (just like people who complain about cheapies or "shredsticks" or "pointies" or whatever) Whether any of that stuff is true or not I have no way of verifying & honestly don't care...I'm just pointing out that (justifiably or unjustly..whatever it may be..) they don't really have a blemish-free reputation for quality.

So you admitting that you have zero experience with them and are just going off of what the internet says...kindly see the above mentioned article as well as this thread about how useless the JB pickup is...

Also, I used Gibson's as an example of expensive guitars (I also mentioned PRS's) and there are plenty more..so my issue is cheap Vs expensive not cheap vs. Gibson

I have little to zero experience with PRS, the ones I've played were decent but didn't jive with me–I am not bashing them nor praising them. I know their high end stuff sports incredible finishes and quality and those I know who have them absolutely love them.

^ Exactly what I said.
As far as the bolt on/more frets/faster neck/easier access etc thing goes..I clearly mentioned that was my personal preference in guitars and the reason why I have no interest in LP's..that's all.

So you have no interest in them–why bash them without any experience with them? That's the whole point we are making–you are comparing your $300 Cort with completely different specs to a guitar you've never owned

I did'nt mention any of that stuff as the criteria for a blind test.

Actually those were all in the paragraph immediately before that statement. Logically all "they're way more comfortable, more stable, tuning-wise, have faster necks, more frets, easier upper fret access, bolt necks = snappier & livelier, feel better and sound as sweet" right before "Bottom line: Blind test = no one tells the difference" tells me those are all included in your assessment/conclusion.

I mean tone-wise..it's far from a given that an expensive guitar is universally going to sound "better" (which is highly subjective anyway) than a mid level guitar.Not that I think it should come to that. I'm speaking figuratively. An expensive guitar does'nt need to sound "better" than a cheap one by virtue of it's cost. No one's going to make me change my mind on that...but keep trying if you like.

Exactly. My point in a nutshell. He/she won't need a 10k guitar for that.

You never said that–I would say it all depends, there are so many variables. I've heard cheap guitars that sounded terrible and cheap guitars that sounded awesome and on the flip side I've played expensive guitars that sounded terrible and expensive guitars that sounded phenomenal. But some people prefer a guitar with certain wood combos and specifications that are by their very nature expensive. Its all about how the guitar and player respond to each other–that is why they are men and women on all music levels playing gear from all price points.

Need is a funny word to use here...do we go as basic as to say we don't need any guitar because all we really need as humans are basic food, water, and air. Do we just need a board with strings? And again, more than just material cost goes into a guitar

Sure ..and as I pointed out (& everyone subsequently agreed to) ..your paying more for their lawsuits/advertising/high wages/high overheads/healthy profit margins etc than for actual input/materials/quality..but ultimately that name on the headstock is probably what makes it all worth it.

Seeing as you were the one to say "90% of what you're paying for is the name on the headstock ..lets not kid ourselves" shows you did not initially say all of that...back pedaling at its finest. There is alot that goes into branding/name recognition–if Gibson is as terrible as all of these internet posts are saying (that have to be true because its on the internet) then quite frankly I don't know how they are still in business and selling guitars...you'd think the new models I play at Guitar Center would not stay in tune and must have been refinished by the GC employees before putting them out on display...

LP with broken tuners (?) lol ..or one of their famous broken headstocks?

I've seen broken tuners on every brand–you replace the tuner not the guitar for that (and you definitely don't say it is terrible quality and the result of 90% brand markup)

Broken headstocks? Happens to all brands as well, especially if not stored properly. I have a 1976 Guild 12 String with a cracked headstock–I'm getting it repaired, not bashing the Guild company for lack of quality and high US brand markups...

lol, you need to look through this thread again. Lots of folk have said cheap guitars can't ever measure up to expensive ones...lol..that's pretty much been the theme of the thread. Not sure how you could've missed it.

Funny, what I see is a common theme of forum bros saying they play well on a well setup guitar.

Enough folk in this thread have scoffed at the idea that it won't.

I've pretty much said what I wanted to..a cheap guitar that's set up right in the right hands can sound as good as an expensive one. period. I'm sticking with that.

So if anyone wants to keep repeating themselves & then patting each other on the back or whatever lol..knock yourselves out

Everyone is entitled to their opinion–and companies like Cort are happy that their marketing and price points have customers like you. We agree on a well set up guitar, but you believe whatever google tells you about how bad Gibson is while not having experience with it, I'm still waiting to see a Gibson with such terrible finishes and play one that won't stay in tune...

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

Yawn. It's great when somebody targets Gibson and then has to backpedal a bit. It's all good to have the cheap vs. expensive conversation but to always target Gibson gets to be so lame and repetitive. Good for you for tossin' PRS out there as well *sarcasm*.

Seeing as he admits "I'm just pointing out that people do complain about them" as well as points to Google about the quality of Gibson...he is just another internet band-wagon Gibson basher :kabong:

 

[Hank-]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

Present day cheap guitars have gotten better to a point that they are actually very comfortable to play , a minor setup to personal tastes gets them going far. I just buy what i find usuable, it maybe expensive or cheap, as long as its fun for me to have around.

Apparently i can't play any guitar properly that isn't setup for my tastes, so thats all the ones in store lol. Once I get them adjusted to me then can play it just fine.

 

[Phantasmagoria]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

Seriously, I did read the thread and it's clear who has an agenda. So, go ahead and pat yourself on the back for joining the internet forces against Gibson. It's trendy to bash them so why not join in!

Sorry..no agenda. I said said cheap vs. expensive. I meant cheap vs. expensive & that's all. You chose to put a spin on that that....fine, your thing (certainly not what I was on about)

I meantioned Gibson in the Context of it being an *expensive* guitar.period.

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

Sorry..no agenda. I said said cheap vs. expensive. I meant cheap vs. expensive & that's all. You chose to put a spin on that that....fine, your thing (certainly not what I was on about)

I meantioned Gibson in the Context of it being an *expensive* guitar.period.

Have you ever owned a Gibson? A PRS? A Wayne? A Charvel Custom Shop? A Fender Custom Shop? A Martin? Have you ever gigged with them?

 

[blueman335]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

Present day cheap guitars have gotten better to a point that they are actually very comfortable to play , a minor setup to personal tastes gets them going far. I just buy what i find usuable, it maybe expensive or cheap, as long as its fun for me to have around.

Apparently i can't play any guitar properly that isn't setup for my tastes, so thats all the ones in store lol. Once I get them adjusted to me then can play it just fine.

+1. Not like music stores keep their guitars in top playing condition. Sweaty, rusty strings and poor intonations don't help sell guitars. I need 9 gauge strings for my playing (lots of bending) and fairly high action. I'm lost with thick strings and/or low actions.

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

+1. Not like music stores keep their guitars in top playing condition. Sweaty, rusty strings and poor intonations don't help sell guitars. I need 9 gauge strings for my playing (lots of bending) and fairly high action. I'm lost with thick strings and/or low actions.

yup, first thing I do with new guitars is new strings and a setup (usually oil the fretboard too)

 

[voggin]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

+1. Not like music stores keep their guitars in top playing condition. Sweaty, rusty strings and poor intonations don't help sell guitars. I need 9 gauge strings for my playing (lots of bending) and fairly high action. I'm lost with thick strings and/or low actions.

Unfortunately, while the whole big box music store/online shopping trend has made prices more competitive for buyers, the whole tradition of having the store set up your guitar as part of the purchase experience is largely lost.

Fortunately, my local Long and McQuaid still does that, but I would hazard a guess that many of the bad experiences people have had with brand x or y guitars on the walls of megastores or after online purchases can be traced back to the lack of individual setups. And even though you can't predict what a given buyer wants in a guitar, they should at least be set up to factory specs when they are on a wall. At least then, if the spec is a little high or low for your tastes, you can get a consistent sense of the company's guitars.

For example, I find Gibson factory spec a tad high for me, and Fender a tad low, but with that knowledge I can predict how it will feel at my spec. I think stores should at least maintain their stock to "decent playability" on the wall.

As for online purchases, a guitar built in one country, shipped to another, stored in another region of that country, and left in the back of a truck for three days before arriving at your house will likely need a tweak or two. "Played great out of the box" and "played like crap out of the box" is just a crapshoot.

Same with minor finish blemishes. If I try a guitar in the store and love it, but there's a little spot of finish on the binding, I'm more likely to not care about it than if I order it without playing it, unpack it when it needs a truss rod adjustment and discover the blemish under a magnifying glass.

When I bought my first electric back in the day (a cheap Japanese LP knockoff), the guy at the store spent a good half an hour setting it up for me. Now, you either have to be able to do your own setups or factor a tech into your purchase price.

 

[Phantasmagoria]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

...and you believe everything you read on the internet?...I will leave that sillyness with this article

no ..when I said "no problem" ..I really meant "no problem"/ "fine"/ "whatever"/ "cool" /"gotcha" ..stuff like that.

So you admitting that you have zero experience with them and are just going off of what the internet says...kindly see the above mentioned article as well as this thread about how useless the JB pickup is...

See above..

I have little to zero experience with PRS, the ones I've played were decent but didn't jive with me–I am not bashing them nor praising them. I know their high end stuff sports incredible finishes and quality and those I know who have them absolutely love them.

I don't recall bashing Gibson's either..just outlined the reason's why they were'nt for me, would'nt say that constitutes bashing. Also..pointed out that they ..like so many others, have internet haters, complaints about quality & general bad-will too..

So you have no interest in them–why bash them without any experience with them? That's the whole point we are making–you are comparing your $300 Cort with completely different specs to a guitar you've never owned

I'm saying why I preferred my $300 Cort..& clearly mentioned that the reasons were 'personal preference' & nothing more. I also mentioned that the Gibby's I've actually played were "flawless". so where does Gibby bashing even come into the picture? This thread is about 'expensive' vs 'cheap' & now it's being given a spin & made out to be something it is'nt, just because no one could come up with a valid reason for it not being possible for a cheap guitar to sound as good as an expensive one.

Actually those were all in the paragraph immediately before that statement. Logically all "they're way more comfortable, more stable, tuning-wise, have faster necks, more frets, easier upper fret access, bolt necks = snappier & livelier, feel better and sound as sweet" right before "Bottom line: Blind test = no one tells the difference" tells me those are all included in your assessment/conclusion.

My state in regard to blind tests was that you could'nt tell a cheap guitar apart from an expensive one "in a room"/"in a mix"/"live on stage" (All of which pertain to tone...& nothing else

Seeing as you were the one to say "90% of what you're paying for is the name on the headstock ..lets not kid ourselves" shows you did not initially say all of that...back pedaling at its finest. There is alot that goes into branding/name recognition–if Gibson is as terrible as all of these internet posts are saying (that have to be true because its on the internet) then quite frankly I don't know how they are still in business and selling guitars...you'd think the new models I play at Guitar Center would not stay in tune and must have been refinished by the GC employees before putting them out on display...

Wow, you're actually going to use that as an example of me back-pedalling? You guys were kind enough to point out that it was'nt just the name on the headstock a buyer paid for but also their lawsuits/higher wages/advertising/higher costs of manufacture/ huge profit margin etc ...none of which has anything remotely to do with the actual quality of the guitar. If anything you helped me prove my point.

I've seen broken tuners on every brand–you replace the tuner not the guitar for that (and you definitely don't say it is terrible quality and the result of 90% brand markup)

Broken headstocks? Happens to all brands as well, especially if not stored properly. I have a 1976 Guild 12 String with a cracked headstock–I'm getting it repaired, not bashing the Guild company for lack of quality and high US brand markups...

Don't get sensitive...It was a joke.

Funny, what I see is a common theme of forum bros saying they play well on a well setup guitar.

Yeah..whether cheap or expensive.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion–and companies like Cort are happy that their marketing and price points have customers like you. We agree on a well set up guitar, but you believe whatever google tells you about how bad Gibson is while not having experience with it, I'm still waiting to see a Gibson with such terrible finishes and play one that won't stay in tune...

And I'm yet to care whether or not a Gibson has a great finish or stays in tune..seriously.

 

[Phantasmagoria]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

Have you ever owned a Gibson? A PRS? A Wayne? A Charvel Custom Shop? A Fender Custom Shop? A Martin? Have you ever gigged with them?

lol...so now that it turns out I actually have a MIA Yngwie sig Strat ..we've got to move on up a step to custom shop stuff?

Funny :laugh2:

 

[voggin]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

Hey, guys. The whole "parsing long posts into constituent elements and responding to each thing" is giving me some creepy flashbacks!

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

no ..when I said "no problem" ..I really meant "no problem"/ "fine"/ "whatever"/ "cool" /"gotcha" ..stuff like that.

See above..

I don't recall bashing Gibson's either..just outlined the reason's why they were'nt for me, would'nt say that constitutes bashing. Also..pointed out that they ..like so many others, have internet haters, complaints about quality & general bad-will too..

I'm saying why I preferred my $300 Cort..& clearly mentioned that the reasons were 'personal preference' & nothing more. I also mentioned that the Gibby's I've actually played were "flawless". so where does Gibby bashing even come into the picture? This thread is about 'expensive' vs 'cheap' & now it's being given a spin & made out to be something it is'nt, just because no one could come up with a valid reason for it not being possible for a cheap guitar to sound as good as an expensive one.

My state in regard to blind tests was that you could'nt tell a cheap guitar apart from an expensive one "in a room"/"in a mix"/"live on stage" (All of which pertain to tone...& nothing else

Wow, you're actually going to use that as an example of me back-pedalling? You guys were kind enough to point out that it was'nt just the name on the headstock a buyer paid for but also their lawsuits/higher wages/advertising/higher costs of manufacture/ huge profit margin etc ...none of which has anything remotely to do with the actual quality of the guitar. If anything you helped me prove my point.

Don't get sensitive...It was a joke.

Yeah..whether cheap or expensive.

And I'm yet to care whether or not a Gibson has a great finish or stays in tune..seriously.

...seriously dude, I'm not the only one calling you out for this. Your beef against expensive guitars in no different than someone saying Ford Trucks are terrible based off of internet rumors about how bad they are. The fact Gibson and PRS are still making guitars with large followings shows me that they don't have the issues you've had.

I would like to know, have you ever owned a high end American made instrument? Fender? Charvel? Gibson? The Eastman I have is handmade in China and was quite expensive compared to most Chinese guitars on the market–it had higher quality parts and attention to detail that I have not seen on any other Chinese instrument I've owned and played. Still needed a setup and a slight adjustment to the saddle, but those are my personal preference.

When I've had my two guitars built by a local luthier, Frank Verrilli, the guitar did not need a setup because he built the guitar to my specs and set it up how I told him I liked it. But the factory setup for just about every guitar I've played was not to my liking and I get those changed.

And as I and most of the guys on this thread has said–we play well on guitars that are set up properly.

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

lol...so now that it turns out I actually have a MIA Yngwie sig Strat ..we've got to move on up a step to custom shop stuff?

Funny :laugh2:

Funny, I never said we had to "move on up a step to custom shop stuff" and you never answered the question (funny how a lot of guys do that when they are back pedaling) and seeing as you said this:

I like cheap stuff....for the most part it's way underrated. Cheap guitars are no different. With the right setup/pickup choice/care...they sing as good as anything. The only guitar I paid over $1000 for was my MIJ S-540 Ltd when I bought it new in '94. And I would'nt say any of my (mostly sub $500) guitars sound or play/feel (or look) inferior in any way. I'm lucky in that I don't really care for a lot of pricier guitar types.. Les Pauls, PRS's etc anyway..they are'nt particularly comfortable & I'm not nuts about their aesthetics either.

and this

I've got an MIJ Ibby & a YJM Strat...that's far enough down the $$$ road to go for me. I've played $3000 Gibson's & PRS's that probably cost way more.

I mentioned the Custom Shop to get into that $3,000 price range. And just saying a "YJM" strat does not mean it is an American Fender JYM strat–there are some MIJs out there (the Japanese make great guitars btw) as well as a bunch of "YJM" knockoffs out there, so without saying a "Fender MIA" it could have been anything (just like all of the "Frankenstrats" out there)

Again, if you haven't gigged or owned the expensive stuff then you are making ignorant statements about their overpriced poor quality instruments. If you gigged/owned with them and had tuning issues or finish issues or another internet anti-Gibson material then you actually have experience but otherwise you really are making ignorant statements.

I've owned Gibson guitars and gigged with them–got tons of compliments on my tone with them, had zero issues with them, the guitars took a beating before and still had an awesome finish and I still kick myself for trading both of them away.

You keep going back to what the internet is saying about expensive guitars, own one and gig with it before adding more fuel to the rumor mill about how bad they are.

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: Anyone find they play better on less expensive guitars?

Hey, guys. The whole "parsing long posts into constituent elements and responding to each thing" is giving me some creepy flashbacks!

Uh oh! Don't want an creepage! lol :wizard: