DreX
New member
Re: making cheap guitars awesome
I did not, friend.
Did you report me for that?
I did not, friend.
Did you report me for that?
Wow.. who's really the lonely one here?
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
There's just no evidence to back up this good wood / bad wood talk.
There is : https://www.unibw.de/lrt4/mechanik/mitarbeiter/ehem-mitarbeiter/hfleischer/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.
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.
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.
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.
Those of us who've played plenty of both ends of the scale ...
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.