Martin’s Official “New Era” release

[GuitarDogs62]

For $4,000 I would rather have a D-18 or a D-35 and so on that has the classic Martin Sound.

Questioning isn't this guitar a 2nd round of the sustaining wood series but in this round with Maple and Walnut instead of Cherry?

I really do not think the back is all that pretty compared to other guitars.

Now far as the bracing sonically and acoustically does and will change the sound dynamics of the guitar.

I think I would be happier if Martin gave me a spruce top with Solid Walnut back and sides in a dread with strap button and sure use the L.R Baggs system.

Right now, I would love to try one to see if my gut feeling still says NO. Far as sound and looks, I do not like it. I also do not like the wood inlay on the fret board. For 4K please give me mother of perl for the inlay.

[JackB1]

Something only one youtube reviewer mentioned is that yes, Martin cut holes in the bracing to make the guitar lighter and resonate more...but it also make these same braces are also taller and the holes only go up halfway. So they took away mass and added mass at the same time. That doen't make a lot of sense to me. Also the guitar isn't THAT MUCH lighter than your typical acoustic...maybe 1/2 lb lighter. Are heavy acoustics really an issue?

[SaintClarence27]

Originally Posted by GuitarDogs62

For $4,000 I would rather have a D-18 or a D-35 and so on that has the classic Martin Sound.
...

I think I would be happier if Martin gave me a spruce top with Solid Walnut back and sides in a dread with strap button and sure use the L.R Baggs system.

When I bought my HD-28 a few weeks ago, I can confidently say that if this were the same price, knowing that I was also going to pay for a K&K pure mini on the side, I would still take the HD-28, and it wouldn't be close. I agree with you on the solid walnut dread and good pickup system - that might have made the choice more difficult.

[RJVB]

Well, at least the look nice from the inside!

Originally Posted by JackB1

Are heavy acoustics really an issue?

Not if you don't don't mind having to support the weight or having to hock it like mad to get a decent acoustic volume out of it...

FWIW, there are several remarks in the concurrent Eastman thread about them being overbuilt. That message was driven home (literally ) when I realised that almost every demo of them uses a very, erm, manly, form of strumming.

[random works]

Originally Posted by JackB1

Something only one youtube reviewer mentioned is that yes, Martin cut holes in the bracing to make the guitar lighter and resonate more...but it also make these same braces are also taller and the holes only go up halfway. So they took away mass and added mass at the same time. That doen't make a lot of sense to me. Also the guitar isn't THAT MUCH lighter than your typical acoustic...maybe 1/2 lb lighter. Are heavy acoustics really an issue?

Looks like the wood removed from the braces is on the bottom part of the braces which is much thicker than the top. While the braces might be taller, the top section of the braces are thinner. Leaving the top-narrow portion of the braces as they are makes sense. I think in balance the braces carry less mass.
They look strange though.

[JackB1]

Boy did this turn out to be a "big nothingburger".

[cip]

I played one today. I thought it was terrible. Felt heavy, dense and felt and sounded like a high end laminate back and sides guitar

[JackB1]

Originally Posted by cip

I played one today. I thought it was terrible. Felt heavy, dense and felt and sounded like a high end laminate back and sides guitar

I'm surprised you found one in the wild. Martin really screwed up the way they hyped this one up. There's nothing groundbreaking at all about this guitar. Plus why is it so expensive if they are using plentiful local wood sources? A $4,000 gigging guitar?? Oh but look how cool the bracing is!!! LOL. Still can't figure out who would buy this thing?