Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

[aleclee]

There's a great deal of focus placed on price in a lot of threads. There's nothing wrong with being concerned about price--money doesn't grow on trees. Some of us don't have regular jobs while others have houses, kids, etc. taking up their paychecks.

Though the approach "I have $X, what's the 'best' guitar/amp/etc. I can get for that amount?" is a recipe for immediate gratification, I'm not confident that it provides either satisfaction or reduced gear costs over the long term. All too often, I've seen folks (including myself) who economize on gear end up selling off their "bargain" gear at a significant loss only to buy what they really wanted in the first place. Talk about wasted money!

Forever is a long time. If you don't plan on upgrading a piece of gear in the foreseeable future, it's probably a good idea to fight the urge for immediate gratificatoin and save up for a few extra months. I'm not saying that if your budget is in the Peavey Classic range that you should hold out for the Bogner you lust after but, by the same token, the Peavey probably isn't going to do it for you, even after dropping a couple hundred more dollars into the amp in mods and speaker upgrades.

I will admit that learning to play on budget gear can (within limits) help one develop an ability to dial in the tones they want despite the rig's limitations. It probably contributed to my unusual idea of the ideal tone.

It's also true that more expensive is not necessarily better. The amps I currently own and love are not the most expensive ones I've had. It's all about finding what works for you.

To that end, it is advisable to look less at price tags and listen more to the equipment. Same goes with spec sheets: they might look impressive but specs don't always translate into tone/playability. I've played neck-thru guitars that didn't sustain worth doodoo. We've heard the stories about how chains of true bypass pedals suck tone (not to mention ones that didn't sound good when engaged). PTP amps don't necessarily sound better.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong...

 

[tone4days]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

yeah man, you're wrong


havent you heard? ...

tone is all in the fingers ...

 

[Mephis]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

You're wrong and you're right.

It depends on if you are just looking to buy a new toy, or if you are in need of something.

If you are just wanting to buy the next toy, yes, don't settle for less than you really want.

If you need something to be able to play or what ever, yes, go ahead and get it.



Notherwords, if you already have a guitar, don't buy some POS guitar just to get another guitar, wait and save up for what you really want.

But if you dont have anything, Make due with what money you have.

 

[PUCKBOY99]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

Although the search never seems to end, you are absolutely correct in saying less expensive gear doesn't necessarily save money.

If I added up the money I've spent on either settling for less or going a different route than I really wanted only to wind up getting what I wanted, I'd have a whole lotta dough...to buy more things!!!! :laugh2:

 

[WhoFan]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

I've bought tons of gear because it was cheap...... wish i had not...... but on the other hand i can sell off some of my collection and do it right.... wish i had done it right the first time. I also buy used gear alot and should not. But i'm a sucker for buying gear in need of help and fixing it up.... and the cost of parts sometimes drives the price up to the point i could of bought a better versions of the same piece....... Like my Marshall jcm 800.... got it for $500canadian.... now i need to spend some cash getting a tech to return the amp to stock, plus i have to recover it as the vinyl is gone..... Depending what it costs me for the tech and the parts it may of not been the brightest deal i made....

AS far as buying a guitar or amp i always find that if you buy a good piece of gear you can sell it later for some cash.... buy cheap and no one wants it to buy it from you...

WhoFan

 

[nahfuten]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

everyone knows that as price increases, the quality of tone increases, duh!
havn't you been listening to gibson's ads?

 

[St_Genesius]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

While this point is fairly specific to electric instruments, I'm a big fan of cheap guitars+upgraded electronics. The sort of guitar that you can assemble for $300 or $500 is to me, both more personalized and often categorically superior to a $300 or $500 off the shelf. I like the project of changing things and I like that what I end up with is almost always more satisfying than what I would have gotten had I spent those exact same dollars on a stock instrument.

 

[bryvincent]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

here's one of the "Slogans of the Gibson Agents" in the 1900s from the book "Gibson Guitars: 100 years of an American Icon":

"Buy your second instrument first
and save money."

so true.

 

[some_dude]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

I agree with reservations....

...if you're just looking for something to experiment with, there's no point in getting the expensive model. I've gone strait to the high end a couple of times only to find out that it wasn't my thing....which lead to an even bigger kick in the balls than I would've suffered had I bought the "Dano Mini" version.

...Also, expensive doesn't always mean better.

....and cheap doesn't always mean crap.

But, in general I do agree with you.

 

[LesStrat]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

With regard to musical instruments, the old adage holds true (generally):

You get what you pay for.

OTOH, as stated previously, inexpensive DOES NOT always equate to poor quality.

 

[Skarekrough]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

To me it's a two-fold thing.

I like having nice guitars as investments and keepsakes. The vintage peices I have I enjoy playing and collecting. It's kinda of a placeholder for money with me, I may earn something back on it eventually but for the most part I'm just content to know it's there and not losing anything.

But for gigging I'm a low-end kinda guy. I'll gig out with two guitars, an amp and a few pedals with a total invested worth of under a grand. But those are axes that make me money and I gig out with because I know they'll do the job and if they get ripped off then I will have minimized my losses on them.

If your heart is set on something then go for it. But with it being such a consumers market right now be sure to ask yourself the question as to whether you'll be satisfied with something that is very much like it.

I never would have thought I would of liked the Japanese Les Pauls. but it's the damndest thing...I can't really see the logo on the headstock when I'm playing them. So as long as I keep playing them then I don't really see not having "Gibson" on there bothering me.

 

[bungalowbill]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

I think a lot of guitarists fall into the " if it isn't expensive it isn't good" thing with regards to their gear, myself included ,but there is a point of diminishing returns. Does a highly figured maple top sound better than a plain one? A lot of what we pay for are asthetics and hype, including what our favorite players are using.

I would rather have a relatively inexpensive "good" guitar than one with a lot of fancy stuff that really doesn't make a big tonal difference. I think durability ought to play into this also...I accidently dropped a Strat on its face on a concrete floor, it broke the nut in half. I superglued it and finished the gig...if it would have been an expensive Les Paul I wouldn't have finished the gig and would have had to spend a ton of money on a repair that probably would not have made the guitar as good as it was. Just my 2 cents....Joe

 

[kherman]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

To me it's a two-fold thing.

I never would have thought I would of liked the Japanese Les Pauls. but it's the damndest thing...I can't really see the logo on the headstock when I'm playing them. So as long as I keep playing them then I don't really see not having "Gibson" on there bothering me.

I'm right with you!

I love my Diodati guitars.
I'm very impressed at the build quality of these Japan replicas.
My 59Q quenched my thirst for a mahogany neck and body with maple carved top LP style. I got it for under a grand. I never think "should I have gotten a Gibson" . I have no desire for one.
I do have GAS for more Japan replicas.

My main guitar is still my '89 Carvin DC127.
I paid around $700( including options, case, and shipping) back then.
It's my main go to guitar. Has held up great.

My most expensive guitar is my '98 Parker Fly Deluxe. Paid around $1450 new. Beautiful guitar. Very well made. It's my least played. I keep it around mainly for the piezos.

I truelly do feel there is great gear out there for under a grand.
One just needs to know exactly what they want in a guitar (or piece of gear) and know how to research it. Find as much info on it as possible. Try it out if at all possible.

My Schecter V7 7 string is 5 years old now. I got it on clearence for $299.
I heard many of people say the mantra
"oh, those korean guitars will be falling apart in 5 years. Then where will you be with those bargain guitars?"
Well my V7 will be on stage with me tomorrow night for our CD release party.
Still looks, feels, and plays great. Still sounds good too.

Kent

 

[Quencho092]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

aleclee, would you consider a DRRI less expensive gear bound to crash and burn?

 

[aleclee]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

aleclee, would you consider a DRRI less expensive gear bound to crash and burn?

Depends on what you're after, not that my opinion on the topic should matter to anyone but me.

It's not so much about the price point as the issue of compromise. If you're looking at it as a less expensive alternative to a Twin Reverb, you're probably in for trouble. If its limited headroom and clean/driven tones are what you're after, you could be on your way to tonal nirvana.

To give a more personal example, I bought a Fuchs-modded Traynor last spring for $1300 because I wasn't willing to spend the $1800-2000 for an upmarket Dumble-style amp. A week later, I played a Two Rock Emerald and was floored. I liked it better than the production Fuchs amps I'd played and there was no way I'd ever look at my Fuchs mod the same way ever again. Fortunately, I had the scratch thanks to some recent gear sales and got a pretty good deal on the Emerald. Though I'd only owned the Fuchs for about a month, I sold it at a $150 loss (incl shipping). In this case, I didn't spend enough buying a $1200 amp. :saeek:

As you can see, I would've been a lot better off stepping up for the Two Rock in the first place (or at least holding off on the Fuchs mod). Not only would I have saved myself a goodly chunk o' change, I would have saved myself the time and effort to sell the Fuchs (I hate packing/shipping amps). My attempt to economize cost me practice time and money.

 

[Nite_Maresz_25]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

lots of good things is this thread...theres hardly anything I dissagee in this thread

I will admit that learning to play on budget gear can (within limits) help one develop an ability to dial in the tones they want despite the rig's limitations. It probably contributed to my unusual idea of the ideal tone.

I would say I'm an ideal example of this and many other points in this thread

great thread aleclee!!!

 

[Ironjose]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

I guess that all you are right and wrong... but that doesnt mean that i´m right... but as for myself when i started to play guitar i didnt have the money i have now... in other words back then i never think about getting a half stack or a floyd rose equiped guitar... my first gear was a washburn bt-3 maverick guitar and a fender frontman 15 watt amp, then i bought a zoom 505II, i squeez them until i know every posible tone that gear could sound... everything was bought from my mother... in other words i didnt have the $$ to buy what i want it.... it was so frustrating... even though i leanerd to make sounds like metallica and satch and others.... etc. but then i realize that to have a great tone and sound i´d to move up and get more pro gear... i got a gt6 which it was amazing then i got a crate 212 and the depth was awesome... then i got my dream a floyd equiped guitar and then i learned that with that gear i could move my world foward and started to search for my tone... anyways... i havent found yet, i now own like 4 guitars and 3 amps and 2 multieffect boards and pod xt live and a boss gt8 which they sound awesome and they´ll never sound as the zoom and viceversa the zoom will never sound like those 2... now i have more tone and soundable sounds which i love, i havent squeez them yet but the time will come when i move up and fowards to achieve a more pro gear....
in the end i think that if you want to sound like sharper and great you´ll have to spend and save for what you are looking for....
JJ

 

[jayK]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

There are really too many variables to fit everybody into the same solution, but you premise does have merit in many cases.

I think that this is really a great time to be in the guitar market if your just looking for sound and not a "name". I think you can get a guitar that sounds as good as a 2k gibson or fender for a quarter or a fifth of the price if you dont care about the name on the headstock.

As far as stage amp rigs go, I don't know anything about that, but I'm sure that there are deals to be had on those too.

It always comes down to trying things out and let your ears make the decision, not your ego. Were all going to make mistakes picking gear, that is how you learn for the next time. It's hard to go against "accepted prevailing wisdom", like Gibson makes the best guitars. Well, they obviously make good ones, but I know that I'm the kind of person who would not be able to just buy one or two guitars and be happy. I like to try different things, and by putting my whole budget into a gibson would be stupid for me.

But that's just me, other people can buy that one gibson guitar and be happy for the rest of their life. For me, I can have four or five or six guitars for the price of that one gibson. I prefer to do it that way, for now anyway. Maybe someday I'll get rid of them and settle on one or two.

Nah, who am I kidding!

 

[Mephis]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

My 1st amp was a B.C. Rich 5watt solid state amp that had a 6inch speaker and fake plastic tolex that they were giving away for free when i bought my 1st guitar. (The bronze warlock, which is still one my of fav guitars. Single bucker, with a hardtail, 1 volume.)

The gain channel sounded like the amp was going necular and was about to blow up (Not in a good way.) With so much hiss and anoying sounds, it was awful.

I got a peavey transtube 258 and thought I'd scored the best amp every built, till the next week when i got a used EMG-81 and put it in my warlock (On a budget of $40), then that amp decided it didnt like EMG's so I moved up to my roland cube. Liked it for a long while then got tired of the total solidstate tone, So i bought my Vox.

I love my vox and all, its the closest thing to a real tube amp (Hell, it can do brown sound, and do a damn good job of it, WITH A TELE!) I still really like it, its just not in the powerrange I'd like now.

So Now i've bought this monsterious 70LB behemoth all tube Peavey classic 50. I can't wait for it to get here. Its going to floor me in more ways than 1. *1st night, i'll be in the hospital due to severe back pain.* And mild hearing damage if my back isn't hurt to bad to play a little.

50watts, Dual twelve inch speakers, a room the size of a cardboard box. PRICELESS. (PLEASE BUY ME EARPLUGS!)

 

[Scott_F]

Re: Less expensive gear doesn't always save you money

Good thread....