A cheap old beater vs 5 brandnew high end

[Von Beerhofen]

My 39 year old trusted Ibanez Artist finally got some hard needed TLC and got some playing time again after hanging on the wall for a very long time.
What surprised me most was how well it sounded, with it's laminated rosewood back and low grade spruce top.

I just couldn't help comparing it to the new guitars I've bought during the past 3 years as an incentive to get back into playing again, inspite of mild arthritis. Amongst these are a SCRZ OM BRW, Martin CS-OM-13, Martin OM Jeff Daniels, Taylor 2011 Fall Koa and a Taylor 2006 Fall 810ce Madagascar.

That Ibanez just has got something that the others don't have, call it vintage or matured or whatever, but somehow it just blows the others away in terms of sound. I say that in between brackets though as the other guitars besides the 810 are all small bodies and aren't really a comparison.
Best comparison for this guitar would probably be a D28 and shame on me, I don't have one.

Still, for a guitar which was only around 350$ in 1976, it was a truely pleasant experience to play it again after so many years. It's battered, scratched, dinged, buckle rashed and hairline cracked, the fretboard is worn and so are the frets. The thing has dustbunnies inside and some other unexplaned phenomena but it just sounds great.

I'd almost have my cremated ashes deposited in the body and be burried with it when my time comes, but I just can't do that to any guitar. It deserves to be played, no matter it's history and for as long as it can be kept playable.

Ludwig

[David Chavez]

Your taste in sound is based on what you know. That being said it is not that uncommon to prefer your guitar over high end guitars. If you play one of those guitars long enough (about a month) then the differences will be more apparent. Usually for acoustic the trend is to go upstream since for higher end guitars there is more sustain/seperation which translate into being able to do more things (like alternative harmonics). For electric this is a bit of a odd ball a lot of artist go for a more vintage guitar from a unknown company to stand out and since it can do the same as a high end guitar there is less of a need to end up only exclusively using high end guitars.

[reholli]

Originally Posted by David Chavez

Your taste in sound is based on what you know. That being said it is not that uncommon to prefer your guitar over high end guitars. If you play one of those guitars long enough (about a month) then the differences will be more apparent. Usually for acoustic the trend is to go upstream since for higher end guitars there is more sustain/seperation which translate into being able to do more things (like alternative harmonics). For electric this is a bit of a odd ball a lot of artist go for a more vintage guitar from a unknown company to stand out and since it can do the same as a high end guitar there is less of a need to end up only exclusively using high end guitars.

To my mind, more sustain would seem to preclude more seperation...

I do agree that the longer you play a low-end well-built guitar, the more the differences (and more often advantages) will be apparent over high-end guitars with no better builds. Of course, that's not what you meant, but that's my experience behind the question.

Other than any cost difference covered by reasonable upcharges for more expensive and to some more desireable build materials, what possible reason would there ever be for paying more? What advantage does a well-built high-end guitar offer over an equally well-built less expensive guitar? On this forum, this is more often about what the buyer thinks they deserve, along with being about what they can afford coupled with their desire to show it, than much about acquiring a better guitar. I truly believe this is often a matter of misplaced pride (although I'm not sure pride is ever justified, especially with respect to possessions). Just one example...a recent thread dealing with breaking strings had postings suggesting more post wraps to alleviate the problem; one posting with a headstock closeup featured the extra wraps along with photo orientation and cropping obviously designed to showcase the Olson headstock logo (at least that was my immediate thought). Of course, Olsons are fine guitars; I'd want one myself if I could ever justify the cost, but that's not my point.

By all means, everyone buy what you want and can afford. But I'd be hesitant to assume that really has anything to do with acquiring an intrinsically better guitar.

[DASmusic]

Originally Posted by reholli

To my mind, more sustain would seem to preclude more seperation...

I do agree that the longer you play a low-end well-built guitar, the more the differences (and more often advantages) will be apparent over high-end guitars with no better builds. Of course, that's not what you meant, but that's my experience behind the question.

Other than any cost difference covered by reasonable upcharges for more expensive and to some more desireable build materials, what possible reason would there ever be for paying more? What advantage does a well-built high-end guitar offer over an equally well-built less expensive guitar? On this forum, this is more often about what the buyer thinks they deserve, along with being about what they can afford coupled with their desire to show it, than much about acquiring a better guitar. I truly believe this is often a matter of misplaced pride (although I'm not sure pride is ever justified, especially with respect to possessions). Just one example...a recent thread dealing with breaking strings had postings suggesting more post wraps to alleviate the problem; one posting with a headstock closeup featured the extra wraps along with photo orientation and cropping obviously designed to showcase the Olson headstock logo (at least that was my immediate thought). Of course, Olsons are fine guitars; I'd want one myself if I could ever justify the cost, but that's not my point.

By all means, everyone buy what you want and can afford. But I'd be hesitant to assume that really has anything to do with acquiring an intrinsically better guitar.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[David Chavez]

Really high end guitars are built a bit better then lower ones there is no actual same level of well built lower one.
For higher end ones the top is usually tone taped (top is tapped and shaved in different areas till it rings the desired note), you have the option of getting hide glue which crystallizes making it more ideal to hold a vibration, side bracing used to not be found in lower models but is now being put on some, options like fan bracing for better intonation, usually see thicker tops with thicker braces on lower end models, the neck fitting is done much better so there is more contact between the neck and the body. So part of the up charge is for build quality which translates to better sound
Each company is a little different in build quality for example my R taylor has the bridge plate inlayed to the top and solid kurfing.
If you would like a better answer please give me two specific guitars to compare. I may have misunderstood what you would have liked me to compare.
No one really needs a high end guitar any more then they need any luxery item. Any guitar after a certain level can do everything any higher end guitar can do. But I really am saving up for a olson or a good old martin that sounds are loud as a piano with the slightest touch.

[Rosewood99]

Consider yourself lucky that you have terrible hearing.

Wish mine was that bad--I would have saved a lot of money.

[Steve DeRosa]

FYI $350 was a fair bit of change in the mid-1970's - I had a bandmate who paid $250 for her Guild D-25, a bud who copped a Guild G-37 for $275, and it wasn't too hard to find a D-18 for under $400 (all brand-new with HSC) - so yours isn't exactly a "cheap" guitar by the standards of the day; BTW, I'm not in the least surprised it sounds as good as you say it does - I owned an Ibanez Ragtime non-cut (cedar/RW, looked like a Larrivee L-03R with a classical rosette, and I've never seen another like it) as well as a "lawsuit" Takamine (with the "Martin" script logo), and there are good structural/tonal reasons the latter have become highly collectible...

[HHP]

Probably a case of "familiarity breeds content"

[DASmusic]

I wouldn't say I have terrible hearing. I can hear the difference in tones and sustain.
But at this point and time its not something I can spend $3000 dollars on.
Believe me, I'd love to have a really high end guitar. I know they're built better.
But after watching a video comparing a Gibson J200 and an Epi EJ200CE I can honestly say there is not $3000 dollars worth of a difference.
Some of you might be able notice in a blind test, but I bet a lot won't.
When playing in a live environment with an audience and most likely plugged in.. They'll never know the tonal difference. Let alone the build difference. They see a dude/chick with a guitar and he/she either sucks or rocks. They won't say, “that guy was amazing, but that Yamaha, or Ibanez, or Epiphone just didn't cut it for me. She can sing like an angel but that guitar tone was making my ears hurt"
That's just my .02.

Originally Posted by Von Beerhofen

My 39 year old trusted Ibanez Artist finally got some hard needed TLC and got some playing time again after hanging on the wall for a very long time.
What surprised me most was how well it sounded, with it's laminated rosewood back and low grade spruce top.

I just couldn't help comparing it to the new guitars I've bought during the past 3 years as an incentive to get back into playing again, inspite of mild arthritis. Amongst these are a SCRZ OM BRW, Martin CS-OM-13, Martin OM Jeff Daniels, Taylor 2011 Fall Koa and a Taylor 2006 Fall 810ce Madagascar.

That Ibanez just has got something that the others don't have, call it vintage or matured or whatever, but somehow it just blows the others away in terms of sound. I say that in between brackets though as the other guitars besides the 810 are all small bodies and aren't really a comparison.
Best comparison for this guitar would probably be a D28 and shame on me, I don't have one.

Still, for a guitar which was only around 350$ in 1976, it was a truely pleasant experience to play it again after so many years. It's battered, scratched, dinged, buckle rashed and hairline cracked, the fretboard is worn and so are the frets. The thing has dustbunnies inside and some other unexplaned phenomena but it just sounds great.

I'd almost have my cremated ashes deposited in the body and be burried with it when my time comes, but I just can't do that to any guitar. It deserves to be played, no matter it's history and for as long as it can be kept playable.

Ludwig

Hi Ludwig,

Ibanez has put out some surprising gems in their history! Thanks for posting this narrative. I owned a very impressive (yet inexpensive) Ibanez acoustic for about 5 years that was remarkable in sound and practicality. I think it's the dust bunnies, but that's just my theory lol

[Ed-in-Ohio]

Originally Posted by Von Beerhofen

My 39 year old trusted Ibanez Artist finally got some hard needed TLC and got some playing time again after hanging on the wall for a very long time.
...snip...
Still, for a guitar which was only around 350$ in 1976, it was a truely pleasant experience to play it again after so many years. ...snip...

Originally Posted by Steve DeRosa

FYI $350 was a fair bit of change in the mid-1970's ...snip...

Just for reference, $350 in 1976 adjusts to $1,452.40 today.

[Ted @ LA Guitar Sales]

Originally Posted by Von Beerhofen

My 39 year old trusted Ibanez Artist finally got some hard needed TLC and got some playing time again after hanging on the wall for a very long time.
What surprised me most was how well it sounded, with it's laminated rosewood back and low grade spruce top.

I just couldn't help comparing it to the new guitars I've bought during the past 3 years as an incentive to get back into playing again, inspite of mild arthritis. Amongst these are a SCRZ OM BRW, Martin CS-OM-13, Martin OM Jeff Daniels, Taylor 2011 Fall Koa and a Taylor 2006 Fall 810ce Madagascar...

Just imagine how great your new guitars will sound in 36 years.

[Dave T]

Originally Posted by DASmusic

When playing in a live environment with an audience and most likely plugged in.. They'll never know the tonal difference. Let alone the build difference.

There's your problem (smile). If your listening to amplified guitars you're not hearing the quality of the guitar but rather the quality of the sound system and speakers. Unplug and listen to a $500 guitar compared to a $3500 guitar that's more than just abalone inlays. You will hear a difference and you should feel a difference in how the better built guitar plays as well.

That's been my experience,
Dave

[MrMartyr]

The ear acclimates to familiar sounds. Familiar is not always better. I learned this lesson back in the 90s when I had a decent Alvarez dread. I thought it sounded amazing. I got compliments on its sound all the time. I thought it sounded great...until I heard a great sounding guitar. At first, I still preferred the sound of my guitar to my friends outstanding sounding Martin. But the more I heard and played his guitar...I realized I was wrong.

I have no doubt that age is the key factor in the sweetened tone of your old Ibanez. Enjoy the heck out of it. Its your guitar. You have a bond and a history with the guitar. You have every right to feel the way that you do about it. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[zombywoof]

I think it is more than familiarity or ears acclimating. With me it generally takes a bit to figure out just how to pull music out of a guitar. So I know say this guitar responds better to a heavier attack than another. All I know is I can go out and play some really great guitars. Some will work for me while the majority will not. But in the end I go home and grab one that has been with me for years and it just feels like an old friend.