Martin synthetics...why?

Bendial · #1 08-23-2007, 10:15 PM

Why does Martin use Micarta on their lower end stuff?

ljguitar · #2 08-23-2007, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bendial

Why does Martin use Micarta on their lower end stuff?

Hi BenDial...
To make money by selling guitars to the lower end of the market.

Randal_S · #3 08-24-2007, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi BenDial...
To make money by selling guitars to the lower end of the market.

Not sure I agree with that. Their 16 Series guitars feature Micarta, yet the lower-priced Road Series, 15-Series, and X Series feature wood.

That said, the 16 Series is Martin's R&D platform, where they can try new technologies (M&T neck joint, Micarta, new bracing patterns, etc) without upsetting the traditionalists too much. I'm guessing they started using Micarta in an effort to find a sustainable substitute for Ebony. Oddly enough, it works just fine.

Tartansailor · #4 08-24-2007, 07:32 AM

I think Randal is right, there has been quite a bit of press recently about the major guitar makers (Taylor, Martin, Gibson) CEOs partnering with Greenpeace, others on conservation activities, protection of forests, etc.. Martin has been (i think) perhaps a bit more out front of the pack in terms of trying to "mainstream" alternative materials.

I've got a mini-Martin that I think is all composite--great little guitar. I suspect that Martin's hoping that once people try it and see that it sounds pretty good, the acceptance will build.

I'm actually surprised electric manufacturer's haven't been more engaged in alternative materials.

Bill

preston · #5 08-24-2007, 08:10 AM

I'm sure there has to be an economic component to it. To be able to reach a lower price point and widen the availability of a "Martin" guitar ( or whatever) to more people who are always looking for "cheaper", shortcuts and substitutes in manufacturing and materials have to be explored. Solid wood guitars are getting increasingly harder to make any cheaper. Purists disdain the 'counter-top' Martins, but I have played several that sounded very good.

eddyboston · #6 08-24-2007, 08:23 AM

I have a Martin 00CX-AE, which is some kind of composite material. I think it's nice that they are experimenting with new materials, but I did have some serious problems with warping of the soundboard on this guitar that required sending it back to the factory for repair. That's the problem with the new and experimental designs, I guess.

Brent Nelson · #7 08-24-2007, 08:32 AM

I personally wouldn't (and haven't) flinch(ed) over a micarta fingerboard or bridge. Entire instruments are being made of petroleum products and plastic derivatives, and I think they sound and perform quite well. I've owned two different CA Guitars in the past, and I liked them every bit as much as the handmades I've had built with traditional woods, etc. Different...sure...but not necessarily "better" or "worse." Just different.
Brent

SNaP2it · #8 08-24-2007, 08:35 AM

In the overall scheme of a guitar, I don't think anyone feels that the fingerboard material has much to do with how the guitar sounds anyway. I think the reason Martin uses Micarta is this - it works. And economically.

Turp · #9 08-24-2007, 08:36 AM

I did some research here and elsewhere and found economics isn't the only facror or even major issue. These materials can are very stable, durable, readily available, and more importantly they work well. I used to beat on Martin for stepping outside of the traditional boundaries that some dealers used against competition. At a time in history there were some vocal devoted "Martinites" bashing other companies with nontradional designs as being inferior. Now in modern day there are still traditionalists out there but their views are expressed more as personal preferences.

Having said that and being very critical myself, I now own a 000-16SGT with micarta fretboard and bridge. Plays, sounds, and looks great. I also own a Little Martin LXM Java with HPL top back and sides. I actually preferred the tone of the HPL top vs. the spruce(seemed warmer to me). Like the 000-16 it plays, sounds, and looks great.

As long as they meet those criteria is addition to being stable I'm OK with it. Now I'm ready to go buy a carbon fiber guitar but I won't I wouldn't consider it.

Just my 2cents.

cpmusic · #10 08-24-2007, 08:52 AM

Cost is not the driving factor for using Micarta. It's a proprietary product that's more expensive than Indian rosewood, Macassar ebony, or whatever wood they're using on the low-end Martin fretboards these days. Martin has long considered the 16 series its "test market" series, which is why it got the hybrid A-frame/X bracing, the mortise and tenon neck joint (which was extended to all the lower series) and the Micarta fretboard and bridge.

I wasn't a fan of Micarta at first and I'm still a little put off from an aethetic standpoint, but it's proven to be stable and durable, making it an excellent and ecological alternative to ebony or rosewood.

Stuart · #11 08-24-2007, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randal_S

Not sure I agree with that. Their 16 Series guitars feature Micarta, yet the lower-priced Road Series, 15-Series, and X Series feature wood.

That said, the 16 Series is Martin's R&D platform, where they can try new technologies (M&T neck joint, Micarta, new bracing patterns, etc) without upsetting the traditionalists too much. I'm guessing they started using Micarta in an effort to find a sustainable substitute for Ebony. Oddly enough, it works just fine.

Yes, not only has micarta proven to be an excellent material for fingerboards, It is NOT necessarilly cheaper than ebony/rosewood. I think I read that somewhere.

MissouriPicker · #12 08-24-2007, 09:25 AM

I think Martin is trying (and succeeding) in leading the pack by trying new materials in their guitars. However, to me, the Martins made with other-than-wood materials are nowhere near the CA and Rainsong composites. Just my view, but the sound of the CAs and Rainsongs far exceeds anything in Martin's DX line and similar. Of course, we are talking different materials from what I understand.

jyee · #13 08-24-2007, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart

Yes, not only has micarta proven to be an excellent material for fingerboards, It is NOT necessarilly cheaper than ebony/rosewood. I think I read that somewhere.

i think it all depends on how you compare... realize that the cost of raw wood is not the only factor. total cost would factor in the fact that micarta is engineered to be much more uniform. How much real wood is scrapped because of splits, knots or other flaws? how much is scrapped because the natural shape of the board limits the number of parts that can be cut from it (sort of like how Wendy's uses square burger patties). how long do you have to slow dry real wood while monitoring it to prevent warping vs. micarta that doesnt have to dry and doesnt warp?

When it comes down to it, martin is a business, so all decisions are economically driven. Micarta is a good way to not only reduce production costs (whether or not the actual $/sqft is lower), but also to consistantly reproduce a guitar with the same quality and sound... So while some would say it's not financially motivated, because it's designed to get a better sound. i'd argue that it is because better sound drives better sales.

preston · #14 08-24-2007, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart

Yes, not only has micarta proven to be an excellent material for fingerboards, It is NOT necessarilly cheaper than ebony/rosewood. I think I read that somewhere.

If it's not, the feeling must be it soon will be or, as has been said, that a scarcity of wood product will make it so. As a rule, replacing a traditional material with a synthetic in something like a guitar is not simply done because one can. It either has to be economically driven or proven to be demonstrably better before the buying public will accept it.

cpmusic · #15 08-24-2007, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissouriPicker

I think Martin is trying (and succeeding) in leading the pack by trying new materials in their guitars. However, to me, the Martins made with other-than-wood materials are nowhere near the CA and Rainsong composites. Just my view, but the sound of the CAs and Rainsongs far exceeds anything in Martin's DX line and similar. Of course, we are talking different materials from what I understand.

They're very different materials. The HPL Martin uses is something like Formica, and unlike Micarta, it's used because it's inexpensive relative to wood. It's used only in the X series, Martin's least expensive line.

The carbon materials used by CA and Rainsong use are much more expensive, and it shows in the prices for those guitars.