Query failed: connection to localhost:9312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused).
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Whether that is part psychological to protect my brain from the horror of paying 8 times the price for the same thing I can't say
: )
(Or only those makers who only build all-solid guitars can afford to be really honest. Hard to say which is which.)
Yep: if they don't say "solid" it is laminate every time.
Should you go all-solid? This depends very much on your budget. At the lower end (around $1000 AUD, that's something like £700), I'd say no. You are better off accepting laminated back and sides and just looking for a solid top. Up around $2000 AUD the boot is on the other foot: you have companies like Taylor and Martin and those Sheeran by Lowden things selling very expensive laminate back and sides guitars for the same price that companies like Furch and Larivee and Maton and Seagull/Gudin sell all solid guitars for - instruments which are superior in all respects. (Not to mention all sorts of things coming out of the low-wage countries.)
Now you are looking to go second-hand, so you will need to make the appropriate allowances, but the basics still hold true.
I'll lay down a general rule here: laminated instruments simply don't have the sound quality or subtlety of a real wood instrument.
Now I'll contradict it. The other week I played a Taylor 1 Series guitar - not the 2 Series which is their laminated but fairly decent offering in the $1800 price range, a cheap little 1 Series Taylor, and it was bloody excellent! Here was the exception to prove the rule. It really was a beautiful little guitar. I've played quite a few Taylor laminated things, and for some reason this one was way better than the usual competent-but-uninspiring standard they meet. Maybe I should have bought it.
Bottom line: follow my general rule, but ignore it if you find something you particularly like.
The good news is that most manufacturers use solid tops on the majority of their lines. It tends to be the ultra cheap models that have laminate tops.
Solid back and sides will come at a price but some makers, Faith and Eastman for example produce all solid instruments for around £500. The trade off is plain satin finishes, no binding, no bling, etc.
Overall the choice and quality of acoustic guitars at all levels of construction and price is vast.
You just have to do a bit of homework and of course, if possible, try before you buy.
Feedback
Laminate back and sides crop up on high end instruments Django style guitars not as a cost cutting feature but for the tonality of the instrument.
I love the sound and style of those kind of guitars/Gypsy Jazz.
Often it is because laminated woods are cheaper than beautiful solid woods.
The material cost doesn't *always* correlate with the built quality and therefor the final price- look at Custom Shop ES335's for example.
So a cheap piece of shit guitar doesn't sound/play bad *because* it is a laminate wood guitar.
There are plenty of good sounding guitars that use that technology.
Studio: https://www.voltperoctave.com
Music: https://www.euclideancircuits.com
Me: https://www.jamesrichmond.com
Auto-Bounce by Tom Salta
Dreamhost Web Hosting
https://www.martinguitar.com/guitars/standard-series/D-28.html
Vs. the LX1
https://www.martinguitar.com/guitars/little-martin-series/LX1.html
You'll note Martin do it differently. They forego use of the word "Solid" but clearly specify where laminate (HPL) is used.
Gibson specify neither "solid" nor "laminate" as they only manufacture all solid (top, back and sides) instruments.
... but it is one of the biggest myths about guitars that you will commonly find.
Old laminate/plywood guitars don't sound like old solid-wood guitars, but they don't sound like new plywood guitars either. They certainly age and change, often a bit more slowly than solid-wood guitars, but nonetheless they still do (and arguably improve) with age.
Play a 60s Yamaha or something like that, or even an Eko Ranger, and you'll find it sounds like a nice old ply guitar, not like a new ply guitar.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson
Is it worse than some of the borderline legal marketing horrors we see in the motor trade, in politics, in food and general retail? Of course not. But it's not a lot better either.
Greenfield guitars go for over 10k!!!
(1) Everybody knows that the top produces most of the sound, and the top timber is critically important. A commonly cited figure (just to put a number on it) is 70%. Some say even more.
(2) This does not mean that the back and sides timber is unimportant. The importance of back and sides timber is easily demonstrated by playing pairs of guitars with identical top timber and construction but different back and sides timbers. For example, compare a rosewood B&S guitar with an otherwise similar mahogany one. Or Rock (American) Maple with Queensland Maple. Very different sounds.
(3) Sides, however, are not the same as backs. We talk about "back and sides" but of those two it is the back which does all the work: the sides simply serve to close the box and keep the other components the right distance apart. There is no particular reason to make sides from the same timber as the back other than convention and aesthetics. You could make sides out of pretty much any reasonably strong material without much change in the sound.
(4) There is a school of thought to the effect that very dense and rigid sides help the top and back function more effectively. Builders subscribing to this use laminations (because solid wood can only be bent up to a certain thickness) and/or add extra weight blocks to the sides. The basic idea is to hold the sides still and have all the vibration expressed via the top and back. The builders I know about who do these things are very well regarded, which I think tells us something. Notice that we are now a very long way away from cheap mass-produced guitars which use laminated materials because that's a cheap way to get consistent (albeit not terribly good) results.
Laminates are bits of wood made out of layers of thinner wood. The grain is layed crossways to provide 2 dimensional strength.
Both techniques can provide thinner stronger tops with greater vibrating potential. Both are OK options. Although laminates can mean cheap, they are also often just different and fine. 1970's Yamaha FG got a good rep from using laminate tops in fact. If the build quality overall is good it isn't necessarily a problem - as has been said.
As regards OP, I've seen the word 'layered' used to seemingly avoid the word laminated. Unnecessary, and buys into the narrative that laminated = second rate.
In fact, if you're buying into the 'better sound from thinner, higher strength-to-weight ratio top' theory for acoustics, laminates are arguably the better way to go. Since cheaper+++. Personal view. And these days makers know not to use laminates so thin they warp over time.
I've never owned a double top. To me the cost has never seemed worth the benefit and I have always thought money better spent exploring other avenues of acoustic guitar quality.
ask a certain Mr J Gomm and a certain Mr G Lowden (called a Hybrid top I believe)
(apologies if its already been mentioned, I lazily didnt read the complete thread)
just because you do, doesn't mean you should.