# I bet the same would happen with electric guitars



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

Blind test at the (US) National Academy of Sciences
Prove that most violinists prefer _newer, cheaper_ violins over the normally prized and sought after high priced models.

Probably would happen with any instrument I think.
"Hearing with your Eyes and ego"

http://news.ca.msn.com/world/in-blind-test-soloists-like-new-violins-over-old-2


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

djmarcelca said:


> Blind test at the (US) National Academy of Sciences
> Prove that most violinists prefer _newer, cheaper_ violins over the normally prized and sought after high priced models.
> 
> Probably would happen with any instrument I think.
> ...


To some degree that is true.
We do "hear with our eyes" to some degree--so do audiences--that's at least part of the reason why some musicians will use one instrument in the studio and another on stage.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

audiences generally have no idea what guitar you're using, except for the general outline. if you tell 100 people who like srv that he once played a squire, they'd say no, he played a fender. but he once did play a squier.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

cheezyridr said:


> audiences generally have no idea what guitar you're using, except for the general outline. if you tell 100 people who like srv that he once played a squire, they'd say no, he played a fender. *but he once did play a squier*.


mmmm, NO. He played a fender, pal.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

adcandour said:


> mmmm, NO. He played a fender, pal.


I can see how this controversy started because he was playing outside, leaning against the _"fender"_ of his car, while playing a _squier._:smile-new:


----------



## 59burst (May 27, 2010)

adcandour said:


> mmmm, NO. He played a fender, pal.


Once, he did play a Squier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_y-hxVPCpU (just googled SRV and Squier and it came up)


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

djmarcelca said:


> Blind test at the (US) National Academy of Sciences
> Prove that most violinists prefer _newer, cheaper_ violins over the normally prized and sought after high priced models.
> 
> Probably would happen with any instrument I think.
> ...


Good to see it happens to violinists as well as guitarists! There are blind tests on you-tube where players can't pick out a custom shop tele/strat
from the squire/mexi/USA versions. I've seen the same thing on LP's as well.


----------



## 59burst (May 27, 2010)

It doesn't even have to be a blind test. I had a MIM 60s LPB reissue strat that I purchased new from GC for $400 that played and sounded as good as any of my CS strats including a Cunetto-era one. In fact I sold all my CS instruments and it was only a custom ordered builder strat that replaced the MIM one. And not because it sounded better but because the neck was exactly to my specs. 

And, yes, I was playing the strats through good amps - Top Hat Emplexador and Club Royale, Sewell Texaverb, Victoria Soulcactus, and Fender CS Dual Professional.


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

59burst said:


> Once, he did play a Squier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_y-hxVPCpU (just googled SRV and Squier and it came up)


Well, technically, you're correct. He's playing another guitarists' axe (Bernard Allison's) in that clip however and AFAIK he was NOT in the habit of playing Squiers. At the risk of sidetracking here, it appears he played a Tokai Strat early on. Regardless of what he had in his hands though, it just goes to show you...he still sounds exactly like you'd expect *;^ ) 

*


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

djmarcelca said:


> Blind test at the (US) National Academy of Sciences
> Prove that most violinists prefer _newer, cheaper_ violins over the normally prized and sought after high priced models.
> 
> Probably would happen with any instrument I think.
> ...



C'mon, eyes _and ego? _That doesn't happen in the music world.:smile-new::smile-new::smile-new:


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I think sometimes the fans are pickier than the artists.
A lot of artists will play the guitar made by whatever manufacturer pays them to play (or gives them the most free stuff). But to some fans, that's sacrilege.
Im neither a fan nor a brand snob, but even I was taken aback to hear of an ESP made Ronnie Wood guitar.

Its ironic how much stuff EVH has lent his name to, yet most of the stuff he played when he was making a name for himself, was whatever he could slap together.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

If one makes pickups as their business, one of the biggest challenges is maintaining consistency. If one makes guitars as a business, one of the biggest challenges is maintaining consistency. And part of that challenge is the inconsistency of the materials one uses. The notion that not all wood is identical makes perfect sense to folks, but even in the case of wire, there can be differences between winds, or even insulation thickness within a wire brand. Naturally, what this results in is efforts on the part of manufacturers to achieve some degree of consistency of product because, after all, part of how you keep a business alive is by providing the customer with what they expect, every time they plunk their money down.

At the same time, that does not mean that flawless consistency can be achieved every time. And here is where consumer expectations can fill in the gap. Nobody may be trying to hoodwink you, but part of what you hear and feel is based on an expectation of product quality. Certainly, if those expectations are clearly not met, you are likely to notice. But if it comes up a little shy of what it ought to be, there is a good chance the your expectations will fill the gap.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

once upon a time, there was a girl. her mother gave her the last of their money and sent her to the grocery store. it was exactly enough to buy a bottle of ketchup and a half dozen eggs. she was sooo happy her mother and her would be able to eat today. on the way home, she decided to sit on the curb for a few minutes because it was hot. as she sat down, she spilled the contents of her bag right between her feet. the eggs all smashed, and the ketchup bottle did too. her heart broke as well. like the good girl she was, she picked up the broken glass and the eggshells. just as she was about to go home and tell her mother what happened she was overcome by frustration and she began to cry and cry. just then, an old man happened by. he looked at the girl crying, and saw the mess on the ground between her feet. he put a compassionate hand on her shoulder and said "there, there, young lady, don't feel so bad. it wouldn't have lived anyway"


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> once upon a time....


Totally disgusting!!

You should be extremely ashamed posting something of this nature.

Dave


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

cheezyridr said:


> once upon a time, there was a


Guitarist who couldn't see past his brand label


----------



## 4Aaron GE (Jul 12, 2009)

> Of the six old violins tested, five were by made by the famous Stradivari family in the 17th and 18th centuries. The newer violins were about 100 times cheaper, said study co-author Joseph Curtin, a Michigan violin maker.


Given that Strads have sold for multi-million dollar sums, the "cheap" violins are still potentially pretty damn expensive instruments.


----------



## ampjunkie (Jul 30, 2009)

djmarcelca said:


> Blind test at the (US) National Academy of Sciences
> Prove that most violinists prefer _newer, cheaper_ violins over the normally prized and sought after high priced models.
> 
> Probably would happen with any instrument I think.
> ...


I would definitely like to see this experiment repeated with either electric guitars or acoustics. 

*Electric Guitar Test*
Strad equivalent = 1959 Les Paul Burst
Guarneri equivalent = 1954 Fender Stratocaster
Modern instruments = huge selection. Grosh, Tom Anderson, Suhr, D'Pergo, Tyler, Thorn, etc.

*Acoustic Guitar Test
*Strad/Guarneri equivalent = 1940 Martin D-45, pre-war Martin D-28. Even some modern instruments like Somogyi, Walker, Traugott, Ryan, etc. that are extremely expensive.
Modern instruments: too many luthiers to mention who make excellent instruments without all the fancy bling that makes prices exorbitant.

I bet most of the very rich collectors could not tell the difference between some of their guitars and some cheaper ones -- and they aren't even close to being the best players -- unlike the violinists in the Strad/Guarneri test who are world-class.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

4Aaron GE said:


> Given that Strads have sold for multi-million dollar sums, the "cheap" violins are still potentially pretty damn expensive instruments.


I think one of the "Cheap" violins mentioned was around 30,000.00 retail

Cheap cheap compared to a genuine Stradivarius.


----------



## ampjunkie (Jul 30, 2009)

djmarcelca said:


> I think one of the "Cheap" violins mentioned was around 30,000.00 retail
> 
> Cheap cheap compared to a genuine Stradivarius.


Yes, $30K is dirt cheap if the violin compares in sound to a Strad. There are several acoustic guitars and archtops in that range: Ken Parker, Linda Manzer, etc.


----------



## 4Aaron GE (Jul 12, 2009)

I think a more interesting question would be "How cheap of a violin can we use before more than 25% of these guys notice?"


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

59burst said:


> Once, he did play a Squier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_y-hxVPCpU (just googled SRV and Squier and it came up)


I was just playing the roll of the 100 generic guitudes...

I'm sure he's probably played EVERY type of guitar out there. He was a player


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Also, we all know the main sound of an electric guitar is in the amp, not the guitar. That would make the test even more difficult than the violin test which was purely acoustic.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

mhammer said:


> If one makes pickups as their business, one of the biggest challenges is maintaining consistency. but even in the case of wire, there can be differences between winds, or even insulation thickness within a wire brand. Naturally, what this results in is efforts on the part of manufacturers to achieve some degree of consistency of product


Mhammer, I don't know what your level of experience is with pickups but I find your post very intriguing. Would you mind explaining a couple things to me if you know the answers please?

1) Do you have any idea on how much the insulation actually affect the output/sound of a said pickup?
2) If it is a reputable wire mfr. doesn't their quality of a certain diameter of each specific wire remain constant?
3) I would think the specifics qualities of the magnets would be okay but is there anything else that could affect consistency?

Thanks very much if you can answer this for me.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> audiences generally have no idea what guitar you're using, except for the general outline. if you tell 100 people who like srv that he once played a squire, they'd say no, he played a fender. but he once did play a squier.


That was part of my point--the audience listens with their eyes sometimes.
You have a fancy guitar or certain type of guitar and they hear on that basis.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

Diablo said:


> I think sometimes the fans are pickier than the artists.


Nope. they could care less, As long as they hear their "Favorite song"

The general audience doesn't give a shit what you're using, what you paid for it, or where you got it.
They want to get drunk and enjoy the show, and go home and get laid.
The only people in the audience who care..... and other DJ's or Musicians.


----------



## ampjunkie (Jul 30, 2009)

djmarcelca said:


> Nope. they could care less, As long as they hear their "Favorite song"
> 
> The general audience doesn't give a shit what you're using, what you paid for it, or where you got it.
> They want to get drunk and enjoy the show, and go home and get laid.
> The only people in the audience who care..... and other DJ's or Musicians.


I would agree with this -- up to a point. If you're playing a guitar that "looks right" to the casual music listener (i.e. Les Paul or Strat shape), and it isn't some funky color -- then yeah -- the fans could care less of the brand, model, pickups, etc.

However, if you're playing some exotic, weird looking instrument -- like a Klein electric, Teuffel, etc. and the color is hot pink -- and you're in a goth death metal band -- then rest assured your fans WILL take notice, and they will not like it. Not because of the way it sounds, but because of the way it LOOKS. The music biz is just as much selling the fans a lifestyle image as it is the actual music. In fact, I'd say for a lot of mainstream music (pop, rap, hip-hop, etc.) -- it's more about the image than the music.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> Mhammer, I don't know what your level of experience is with pickups but I find your post very intriguing. Would you mind explaining a couple things to me if you know the answers please?
> 
> 1) Do you have any idea on how much the insulation actually affect the output/sound of a said pickup?
> 2) If it is a reputable wire mfr. doesn't their quality of a certain diameter of each specific wire remain constant?
> ...


Jon Moore is going to be more of an expert than I, but we both hang out at the pickup-makers forum at MEF quite a bit, and are both likely to read the posts from various pickup-makers with considerable experience, many of whom are very generous in their sharing of knowledge and tips. These include luminaries such as Rick Turner, Jason Lollar, and Frank Falbo.

The thickness of magnet wire, typically stated as gauge, plays a role in the electrical resistance it poses, but perhaps more importantly, how many turns can be wrapped around the magnets or magnetically-conductive slugs within a given space. It acquires this importance because of the relative standardization of pickup shape/size. I'll put it another way. It IS possible to make a car engine with more pistons, greater piston volume, and wads more horsepower, but if it won't fit under the hood and between the wheels of the typical car, what exactly is the point? So car engines are designed to achieve the maximum within the given space provided. Similarly, pickups usually need to fit a particular space, so the gauge of the wire and how much one can fit starts to ascend in importance.

But the wire's thickness is not only a function of the copper. It is also a function of the insulation coating the wire, which can also be a function of the material used to insulate. That, in turn, can affect the spacing between layers, and how close the layers of turns are to the polepieces. The spacing, as I understand it, would not affect the output all that much. After all, 7000 turns is 7000 turns. But the spacing does play a role in the inductance and resonance/s of the pickup. For example, the wire and polepieces on a Strat and Jazzmaster pickup are not all that different from each other, but with more of the turns on the Strat being closer to the polepieces, it is a much brighter-sounding pickup. I'll ignore that the polepieces are different in height for the moment.

As far as I know, the wire and insulation thickness on a spool of wire from the manufacturer will be consistent. The thickness across manufacturers, or over time/batches may not be. And by "time", I don't mean between today and next Wednesday, but rather between this month and maybe 18 months from now when some parts on the machinery used to produce the wire needed their semi-regular replacement. A given manufacturer might also change the formulation or type of insulation used, perhaps in response to some sort of government-mandated regulation (e.g., off-gas or other materials now designated as hazardous), resulting in small changes to thickness. Wire manufacturers feel the pressure to provide a consistent product as much as any business does, But if pickup-maker X got their wire from wire-maker Y, and Y changed a few things, even if X is using the same magnets, same gauge, same number of turns, and same winding apparatus, users may find that pickups manufactured before, or within, a certain time period sound "better" to their ears than others from a different period. Not like crap, just different.

The composition of magnets, slugs, even baseplates, is a constant source of debate amongst makers. As for the magnets themselves, I recall a visit I paid to the office where Evans pickups were made. Back when they were in production, they were based in Victoria, and so was I. I popped in to see if I could score some polepieces for making my own PUs, and Rod (I think that was his name) was nice enough to sell me a bunch. The alnico slugs themselves were sitting in a bin, uncharged. He grabbed a bunch, stuck them in the charger, turned it on, and then handed them over. Were they checked for strength with a gauss-meter? No. Did he normally check the polepieces for his own product line with a gauss-meter to make sure they were all the same? It didn't appear to be set up for that.

I cannot emphasize enough that, since the days of Abigail Ybarra hand-winding Fender coils in Southern California, we've come a long way, in terms of developing equipment for both measuring and providing consistency in pickups. And, happily, often that equipment is within reach/price-range of smaller manufacturers. One can even get equipment these days that can consistently "reproduce the inconsistencies" of vi9ntage pickups...although obviously one has to know a lot about what those particular inconsistencies were in the more desirable pickups, in order to do that. When Jay Gundry, who makes the Throbak pickups, managed to score himself a couple of the Leesona coil-winders that had been used to make PAFs in the late 50's, and are partly responsible for the "scatter-wind" that distinguishes them, he couldn't tell the folks on the pickup-makers forum fast enough.

Finally, I should also emphasize that all of the above presumes we are talking about pickups of some reasonable quality, and not the sort that show up on $79 Strats. It may be the case that those sorts of pickups have less attention to consistency, by virtue of their price-point, but it may also be the case that they are more consistent, by virtue of the huge volume that those production houses churn out. I have no basis for presuming one way or the other.

But my basic point is that when one is moving into the business of making pickups, or pedals (neither of which I am doing, other than for my own amusement/pleasure), you aim to have a consistent product, such that when one musician raves about what they bought from you to another musician, that next customer purchases exactly what they were expecting to get, with no variation in quality, tone, etc.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

The news article headline says "new" violins, not "cheaper" violins.

Any attempt to associate a "cheaper" $30k violin to a cheap guitar is completely invalid. 

In it's day, the Strad would have been on par with a $30k violin. The rarity of a Strad contributes most to it's price. So fundamentally the instruments are in the same class, except one bolstered by 300 years of aging and price bolstered by rarity.

I understand that the evolution of the voicing of the violin has continued to evolve, thus the voicing of a modern violin is different than the voicing of a Strad. So no surprise that a modern player may have an ear for a modern violin.

To apply this to the guitar world, you would have to compare the best 59 LP with the best modern creation. Or the best pre-war Martin with the best modern creation (as ampjunkie says).

If one is happy playing their cheap guitar then great for them - enjoy! There is no doubt that with some work, cheap guitars can be good guitars. But when they talk smack about a truly fine instrument in favour of their cheapy, then they have taken it too far.

No experienced or discerning violinist would choose a student violin over a Strad... that could be proven as fact! Give a student violinist with little experience the same choice and the waters will get muddy... like it is in the guitar world.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

mhammer said:


> The thickness of magnet wire, typically stated as gauge, plays a role in the electrical resistance it poses, but _*perhaps more importantly, how many turns can be wrapped around the magnets or magnetically-conductive slugs within a given space. *_
> 
> 
> As far as I know, the wire and insulation thickness on a spool of wire from the manufacturer will be consistent. The thickness across manufacturers, or over time/batches may not be. And by "time", I don't mean between today and next Wednesday, but rather between this month and maybe 18 months from now when some parts on the machinery used to produce the wire needed their semi-regular replacement. A given manufacturer might also change the formulation or type of insulation used, perhaps in response to some sort of government-mandated regulation (e.g., off-gas or other materials now designated as hazardous), resulting in small changes to thickness.


Excellent information! Having purchased different gauges of wire for a business and having a friend work for the distributor I bought from I was aware how reputable manufacturers strive for consistency in keeping the thickness of each different gauge.

However, I never thought about the insulation thickness making a difference but as you pointed out, it's a space limitation. Makes so much sense when you think about it. Thank you very much for taking the time in answering this for me. Best regards, Steadfastly


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

My pleasure. There is much about music gear and its design/fabrication/construction that makes an enormous amount of sense when a few little bits of "shop floor" realities are inserted into the proceedings, and allowed to simmer for a little while. A pity that much of that never makes it into product reviews, music-store chatter, and often forums.

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Mark, why would anyone bother winding pickups (or spend time on a pickup-makers forum) since the main sound of an electric guitar is the amp, not the guitar?


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

4Aaron GE said:


> I think a more interesting question would be "How cheap of a violin can we use before more than 25% of these guys notice?"


A working violinist would know immediately, let alone a world class player.

Not only will a fine violin offer a richer tone, the playing dynamics of the instrument will be far superior... it will play soft without stalling... it will play loud without choking.

Tone, note separation, balance across strings and up the neck, sustain, volume, projection, bloom, are some of the characteristics to which a discerning ear and player will be aware.

The same applies to guitars, acoustic especially. Whether the guitar be a flat top, arched top, classical, or flamenco guitar... each having it's unique ideal voicing suited to the musical style it is intended for and discernable by an accomplished player.

- - - Updated - - -



Steadfastly said:


> Also, we all know the main sound of an electric guitar is in the amp, not the guitar. That would make the test even more difficult than the violin test which was purely acoustic.


Ever hear about an acoustic guitar?


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Well, now I know wine tasters are bulls hit too.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis

How's about you whiskey drinkers? Can you believe I just said that?


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

adcandour said:


> Well, now I know wine tasters are bulls hit too.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis
> 
> How's about you whiskey drinkers? Can you believe I just said that?


It doesn't take a sophisticated palette to distinguish a taste difference between a fine wine and a table wine. 

The study is comparing fine wines to fine wines, not fine wines to table wine. The differences will be subtle comparing fine to fine, not so subtle fine to table.

Similar flaws with this comparison as with the violin comparison... neither prove anything relating cheap guitars to fine guitars.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

dradlin said:


> Ever hear about an acoustic guitar?





> Originally Posted by *Steadfastly*
> _Also, we all know the main sound of *an electric guitar *is in the amp, not the guitar. That would make the test even more difficult than the violin test which was purely acoustic._


I was speaking about an electric guitar.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Steadfastly said:


> Also, we all know the main sound of an electric guitar is in the amp, not the guitar. That would make the test even more difficult than the violin test which was purely acoustic.


Sorry Steadly, but I have to strongly disagree with that statement. While it's true that through a heavily overdriven amp the distinctive tone of a guitar is lessened, but the more pure and unaffected the amplification, the more the distinct tone of the instrument is allowed to be heard. The obvious comparison would be a Strat and a Les Paul through the same amp. Very different.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

bluzfish said:


> Sorry Steadly, but I have to strongly disagree with that statement. While it's true that through a heavily overdriven amp the distinctive tone of a guitar is lessened, but the more pure and unaffected the amplification, the more the distinct tone of the instrument is allowed to be heard. The obvious comparison would be a Strat and a Les Paul through the same amp. Very different.


Then id refine your statement as well, as a strat with HB's doesn't sound IMO all that terribly different than an LP (usually with HB's), clean or otherwise.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Diablo said:


> Then id refine your statement as well, as a strat with HB's doesn't sound IMO all that terribly different than an LP (usually with HB's), clean or otherwise.


I agree. In fact the sound coming out of the speakers is the sum of everything in the the chain. Including the player.


----------



## jtienhaara (Dec 4, 2013)

A Strat with thick strings will sound a little different than a Strat with thin strings.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

dradlin said:


> It doesn't take a sophisticated palette to distinguish a taste difference between a fine wine and a table wine.
> 
> The study is comparing fine wines to fine wines, not fine wines to table wine. The differences will be subtle comparing fine to fine, not so subtle fine to table.
> 
> Similar flaws with this comparison as with the violin comparison... neither prove anything relating cheap guitars to fine guitars.


They were judging against the EXACT SAME bottle of wine 3 times.

Each panel of four judges would be presented with their usual "flight" of samples to sniff, sip and slurp. *But some wines would be presented to the panel three times, poured from the same bottle each time*. The results would be compiled and analysed to see whether wine testing really is scientific.

More:

Results from the first four years of the experiment, published in the_Journal of Wine Economics_, showed a typical judge's scores varied by plus or minus four points over the three blind tastings. *A wine deemed to be a good 90 would be rated as an acceptable 86 by the same judge minutes later and then an excellent 94.*

Here is the abstract from the study:

*Abstract*
Wine judge performance at a major wine competition has been analyzed from 2005 to 2008 using replicate samples. Each panel of four expert judges received a flight of 30 wines imbedded with triplicate samples poured from the same bottle. Between 65 and 70 judges were tested each year. About 10 percent of the judges were able to replicate their score within a single medal group. Another 10 percent, on occasion, scored the same wine Bronze to Gold. Judges tend to be more consistent in what they don't like than what they do. An analysis of variance covering every panel over the study period indicates only about half of the panels presented awards based solely on wine quality. (JEL Classification: Q13, Q19)

Dunno, all seems kinda suspicious...er..I mean obvious to me..


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

bluzfish said:


> Sorry Steadly, but I have to strongly disagree with that statement. While it's true that through a heavily overdriven amp the distinctive tone of a guitar is lessened, but the more pure and unaffected the amplification, the more the distinct tone of the instrument is allowed to be heard. The obvious comparison would be a Strat and a Les Paul through the same amp. Very different.


Yes, I see the point you are making and in this instance it is valid. I was speaking more in overall tone of an electric guitar. In the context of this thread, my comment doesn't really apply.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

adcandour said:


> They were judging against the EXACT SAME bottle of wine 3 times.


The violin study compares fine violins.

Your referenced wine study compares fine wines.

Neither study compares fine to cheap, for which the differences would be glaring.

The thread implies that there is no discernible difference between a fine guitar and a cheap guitar, through mis-application of the violin study and your referenced wine study... completely fallacious.

If one has a cheap guitar that satisfies their every sensation then fantastic... ignorance is bliss!


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> I was speaking about an electric guitar.


Grace us with your wisdom as it relates to an acoustic instrument, as is the case with a violin in the referenced study.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

dradlin said:


> Grace us with your wisdom as it relates to an acoustic instrument, as is the case with a violin in the referenced study.


The thread is about electric guitars. 

Why would you want my wisdom about acoustics? There are a couple good points in this thread about acoustics and how they might relate in a similar test. Check them out. I'm sure your knowledge is greater than mine anyway.


----------



## jtienhaara (Dec 4, 2013)

Oh and a guitar with dirty strings -- acoustic or electric -- will sound slightly different than the same guitar with clean new strings.

And an acoustic guitar in a closet will sound slightly different than an acoustic guitar in an auditorium.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

jtienhaara;551121
And an acoustic guitar in a closet will sound slightly different than an acoustic guitar in an auditorium.[/QUOTE said:


> Yes, but won't that depend on the size of the closet and the size of the auditorium and how many people are in the closet?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

jtienhaara said:


> A Strat with thick strings will sound a little different than a Strat with thin strings.


Maybe....I don't think I could hear it....but I know I play guitars differently if they've got thin bendy strings vs thick ones, so that would have to be factored out ie if Im having way more fun playing the thin stringed git.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

dradlin said:


> The violin study compares fine violins.
> 
> Your referenced wine study compares fine wines.
> 
> ...


Oops.

But, my link does _also_ reference the inability people have of discerning a fine wine from plonk garbagio:

An expensive wine may well have a full body, a delicate nose and good legs, but the odds are your brain will never know.
A survey of hundreds of drinkers found that on average people could tell good wine from plonk no more often than if they had simply guessed.
In the blind taste test, 578 people commented on a variety of red and white wines ranging from a £3.49 bottle of Claret to a £29.99 bottle of champagne. The researchers categorised inexpensive wines as costing £5 and less, while expensive bottles were £10 and more.
The study found that people correctly distinguished between cheap and expensive white wines only 53% of the time, and only 47% of the time for red wines. The overall result suggests a 50:50 chance of identifying a wine as expensive or cheap based on taste alone – the same odds as flipping a coin.

To be honest, my point is really that there are very few individuals who actually have a clue when it comes to essentially anything (I even have my doubts about this). 

In summary, product opinions are about as good as a fine wine, haha.


----------



## ampjunkie (Jul 30, 2009)

dradlin said:


> The violin study compares fine violins.
> 
> Your referenced wine study compares fine wines.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but I think the thread implies from the violin studies that there are very small difference between the LEGENDARY guitars which everybody seems to want (or a copy) and very well made modern copies. Both the old and modern versions are quite expensive (like the analogy of the violins), but the difference in prices are staggering. Strads go in the millions, while very good modern violins are ~$50K. That is a factor of 100.

Similarly, for electrics or acoustics, I am talking about legendary guitars like the '59 Les Paul and '54 Strat (which everyone seems to make a copy of due to demand), and these can go for $100K or more. I think a mint '59 Les Paul is $750K? While a well-made modern copy might be <$10K. That is a factor of close to 100 also. None of these guitars are "cheap" in the general sense of the word. 

The point of the violin study is that the price between these all fine instruments varies by a factor of 100, but in no way does price reflect the instrument's performance capability (tone, volume, projection, etc.). I don't doubt that the golden period Strad may be a better instrument, and certainly a better investment vehicle -- but by pure sound -- is it 100X better as reflected in the cost? I don't think so. It is 100X more probably because of its heritage and history ... BTW, if you look at the most expensive guitars ever sold, they had not much to do with sound. It was their heritage -- i.e. last owner. 

There is one thing people have not mentioned with regards to the violin study, and that is the perception of playing a better instrument. Just the perception of playing a legendary Strad or Guarneri -- imagine playing a violin played by Paganini! -- may entice the performer to play much better, and thus sound better.


----------



## dmc69 (Jan 20, 2011)

Summary: Is the "mojo" worth the extra 10x difference in price from a vintage instrument to a modern well-made instrument of the same type? From a utility/players' point of view, nope.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

ampjunkie said:


> The point of the violin study is that the price between these all fine instruments varies by a factor of 100, but in no way does price reflect the instrument's performance capability (tone, volume, projection, etc.).


The price of a Strad or 59 LP is the product of the principle of supply and demand... Combine an extremely finite supply with high performance and that is what you get.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

dmc69 said:


> Summary: Is the "mojo" worth the extra 10x difference in price from a vintage instrument to a modern well-made instrument of the same type? From a utility/players' point of view, nope.


I use to own a business that sold mojo, so I have to politely agree. I still run it from home when I'm not too busy selling magic beans. And, I accept bitcoin.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

adcandour said:


> I use to own a business that sold mojo, so I have to politely disagree. I still run it from home when I'm not too busy selling magic beans. And, I accept bitcoin.


YOU!!!! you're the one who conned me outta my cow! you son-of-a-bitch! lemme tell you guys what he did. i was mindin my own on the way into town with my cow, and this guy rolls up, all flash with his ox cart and whores drunk on mead. he says"that's a nice lookin cow you got there...goin to market?" he says he's got these magic beans that will grow me a huge crop year after year an make me tons of money. he semed so with it, and sincere. so i believed him. i brought that shit home all proud, like i done somethin good. walkin in the door all smilin, i figured once my wife heard about the incredible deal i just made, she might let me put my key in the lock. well, i show her the beans and tell her the whole thing. she hit me over the head with a log for the fire and threw my beans out the window. as you may have guessed, i did no locksmithing that night. worse still, the next day there's this GINORMOUS vine growing right outside the window. i climbed up there to see what kinda fruit grows n a vine that reaches the clouds. guess what? NONE!!! i won't even get into all the bullshit that happened after that. if he tries to sell any magic beans to you guys, just say no!


----------



## dmc69 (Jan 20, 2011)

adcandour said:


> I use to own a business that sold mojo, so I have to politely disagree. I still run it from home when I'm not too busy selling magic beans. And, I accept bitcoin.


True mojo sellers accept DogeCoin. 

All that aside, "mojo" only affects collectors and historians. Collecting an R9 is not the same as a true '59 LP. If you're purely looking for an instrument to play on and only care about how it plays and sounds, "mojo" is as useless to you as I am to vegans (I'm a huuuge carnivore).


----------



## ampjunkie (Jul 30, 2009)

dradlin said:


> The price of a Strad or 59 LP is the product of the principle of supply and demand... Combine an extremely finite supply with high performance and that is what you get.


I am doubting the "high performance" part of the Strad and 59LP. That was the whole point of the study. My opinion is that these vintage instruments have taken on mythical status. I am not saying they are poor instruments. But are they greatest instruments on this Earth from a tonal point of view? Maybe not. And since they are no longer made, and a few of them have showed exceptional performance under the best players' fingers -- everybody thinks they all must be great. I don't think this is true. It is true, though, that they are rare and old. if that is why you are buying them, then there's no argument. :smile-new:

I think for some of the instruments, the demand is coming from the myth -- NOT the actual performance. I think a modern LP or copy (say from Yaron) in a double-blind test with a '59 Les Paul might be able to hold its own. That is what I draw from the conclusion of the violin study, and I am extrapolating to the electric and acoustic guitar realms ... as well as my own personal experience in playing both modern and vintage instruments.


----------



## jtienhaara (Dec 4, 2013)

Steadfastly said:


> Yes, but won't that depend on the size of the closet and the size of the auditorium and how many people are in the closet?


Good points. Also the number of pints of beer in the closet or auditorium! A glass of liquid has the potential to act like a Helmholtz resonator, sucking a frequency right out of the air, changing the tone, etc etc etc etc.




Diablo said:


> Maybe....I don't think I could hear it....but I know I play guitars differently if they've got thin bendy strings vs thick ones, so that would have to be factored out ie if Im having way more fun playing the thin stringed git.


That's fair and I probably couldn't pick out someone else's random guitar between the thin and thick strings, but I certainly used to be able to tell the difference on my own guitar when I played around with string gauges many years ago.

But in any case there are lots of physical factors affecting preference of one guitar or violin over another, before we even get into psychoacoustics and fads (most contemporary violinists expects things to sound contemporary, so is it really surprising that they prefer the sound of contemporary instruments?).

Don't forget about the thickness of the toque you wear over your ears during the listening test, that will certainly affect the outcome! 

$0.02,

Johann


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

cheezyridr said:


> YOU!!!! you're the one who conned me outta my cow! you son-of-a-bitch! lemme tell you guys what he did. i was mindin my own on the way into town with my cow, and this guy rolls up, all flash with his ox cart and whores drunk on mead. he says"that's a nice lookin cow you got there...goin to market?" he says he's got these magic beans that will grow me a huge crop year after year an make me tons of money. he semed so with it, and sincere. so i believed him. i brought that shit home all proud, like i done somethin good. walkin in the door all smilin, i figured once my wife heard about the incredible deal i just made, she might let me put my key in the lock. well, i show her the beans and tell her the whole thing. she hit me over the head with a log for the fire and threw my beans out the window. as you may have guessed, i did no locksmithing that night. worse still, the next day there's this GINORMOUS vine growing right outside the window. i climbed up there to see what kinda fruit grows n a vine that reaches the clouds. guess what? NONE!!! i won't even get into all the bullshit that happened after that. if he tries to sell any magic beans to you guys, just say no!


Whoa, Whoa, Whoa...had you told customer support about the issue, I would have certainly directed you to China (where I sourced the beans). Anyhow, bad product forced me to close shop and take up the family biz - locksmithing...where in Scarberia are you and the Mrs?


----------



## 4Aaron GE (Jul 12, 2009)

dradlin said:


> A working violinist would know immediately, let alone a world class player.
> 
> Not only will a fine violin offer a richer tone, the playing dynamics of the instrument will be far superior... it will play soft without stalling... it will play loud without choking.
> 
> ...


You misinterpret my question here. What's the threshold? Obviously, a $300 student violin wouldn't fly. Would a $3000 one work? $10000?


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

4Aaron GE said:


> What's the threshold?


The "threshold?

_"The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence the saying, Dirt poor. The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until, when you opened the door, it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entranceway. Hence the saying a thresh hold."_


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Anyone who has changed a set of pickups would know what a difference that they can make.
It's not all in the amp, as bluzfish alluded to, it's a sum of all the parts.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread....


----------



## jtienhaara (Dec 4, 2013)

Steadfastly said:


> _The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing._


*applies for patents for the Straw Worn Telecaster and Relic Slate Straw Floors*


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Vintage does not always equal better. Last summer I was in upstate NY for work & snuck away to visit a few guitar stores. Over the course of the weekend I had the chance to play at least a dozen vintage guitars (pre-CBS Strats, 50s LPs, & a few SGs).

The highlight of the trip was a trio of wraptail, goldtop Les Pauls (2 '54s & a '55) at Rumble Seat Music in Ithaca. One of the '54s sounded absolutely glorious, whereas the other 2 were very good, but hard to justify vs. an excellent R4 at 1/10th of the price. Predictably enough, the guitar that had the most play wear was the best one of the three.

The best Strat was an early 70s. CBS-era! gasp.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

I read recently that the new reissues were better than the originals because the tolerances, CNC machining, better quality control, etc. produces a better guitar. It makes sense. Who would think a '54 Chevy is better than a 2014?


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> I read recently that the new reissues were better than the originals because the tolerances, CNC machining, better quality control, etc. produces a better guitar. It makes sense. Who would think a '54 Chevy is better than a 2014?


I'll take the '54......


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

djmarcelca said:


> Nope. they could care less, As long as they hear their "Favorite song"


You mean all that discussion I used to have with a guitar playing friend after concerts was for nothing?
We were the only two people who cared what guitars were used?


----------



## sambonee (Dec 20, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> Also, we all know the main sound of an electric guitar is in the amp, not the guitar. That would make the test even more difficult than the violin test which was purely acoustic.


You've posted great stuff in the past however this I must disagree with. The pickup and the fingers are the vocal chords of the guitar period. Amp 8-15% max.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

sambonee said:


> You've posted great stuff in the past however this I must disagree with. The pickup and the fingers are the vocal chords of the guitar period. Amp 8-15% max.


I appreciate your post. Perhaps I am wrong but I would not mind if you would comment on why you think it is 15% maximum. I know the speaker alone can make a major difference in the sound. Thanks, Steadfastly


----------



## ampjunkie (Jul 30, 2009)

sambonee said:


> You've posted great stuff in the past however this I must disagree with. The pickup and the fingers are the vocal chords of the guitar period. Amp 8-15% max.


I think it depends on the nature of the guitar tone. If you're playing really clean, or on the edge of breakup, I think the guitar does make a big difference. Through the same amp, a Strat will simply sound very different than a Les Paul. And pickups make a huge difference too (single coil vs hums). Or EMG actives vs passives, etc.

However, if you're striving for a huge gainy, liquidy solo -- like an Eric Johnson lead violin tone, then the amp makes more a difference in my opinion, and the guitar chosen would be more for of the "feel." I say this because if you listen to Eric Johnson's Cliffs of Dover -- can you really tell what guitar he used on the recording? Live, he'll play his signature strats, but I've heard him use his '56 strat also. But on record, I think it was an ES-335! I dare anybody to figure out just by the tone what guitar he actually is using at that gain level. It's his amps that mainly set the tone. How can an ES-335 sound like a Strat? Through a ton of gain! :smile-new:


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

sambonee said:


> You've posted great stuff in the past


...uh...I never caught any of that.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> I read recently that the new reissues were better than the originals because the tolerances, CNC machining, better quality control, etc. produces a better guitar. It makes sense. Who would think a '54 Chevy is better than a 2014?


Again, it's a consistency thing. We have a tendency to focus on the best examples of a vintage-era model, and overlook the worst. I'm quite confident that there were 54 Strats and 59 bursts that were less than stellar examples of their respective models, even though the best examples of those models/years are outstanding by any measure.

If there has been any big change in the industry over the past 60 years, it is that manufacturers which strive for consistency of product are in a better position to monitor and a_chieve _it. There will always be manufacturers, and price-points, where the motivation to aim for consistency of product is minimal. It is those sorts of manufacturers or price-points that lead me to recommend that one ought not purchase such instruments sight-unseen, because there will be fabulous examples, worth more than their asking price...as well as absolute dogs, and nobody is really keeping tabs in any stringent way. Best to try them out in a store.

And even though one would initially think that use of organic products, like wood, would introduce more variability than products which employ ONLY man-made components (i.e., pedals), the same sorts of mistaken inferences are often drawn about pedals. One will often hear tales about the superiority of this issue versus that issue, based on direct comparison of only one example of each issue. Were ALL pedals released as issue X_ identical _to the one being used as the prototypic example, or were there component-tolerance variations that might have changed the sound? Mike Matthews is on record as stating that if one took any four consecutive Big Muff Pi pedals off the assembly line during the 70's, they would all sound different from each other in audible ways, simply because of component tolerances. Nothing wrong about saying one likes X better than Y. But naïve to assume that anything cosmetically or chronologically related to X will _always_ be better than anything cosmetically or chronologically related to Y. It is a naïve expectation of consistency that doesn't really exist.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

mhammer said:


> Again, it's a consistency thing. We have a tendency to focus on the best examples of a vintage-era model, and overlook the worst. I'm quite confident that there were 54 Strats and 59 bursts that were less than stellar examples of their respective models, even though the best examples of those models/years are outstanding by any measure.
> 
> If there has been any big change in the industry over the past 60 years, it is that manufacturers which strive for consistency of product are in a better position to monitor and a_chieve _it. There will always be manufacturers, and price-points, where the motivation to aim for consistency of product is minimal. It is those sorts of manufacturers or price-points that lead me to recommend that one ought not purchase such instruments sight-unseen, because there will be fabulous examples, worth more than their asking price...as well as absolute dogs, and nobody is really keeping tabs in any stringent way. Best to try them out in a store.
> 
> And even though one would initially think that use of organic products, like wood, would introduce more variability than products which employ ONLY man-made components (i.e., pedals), the same sorts of mistaken inferences are often drawn about pedals. One will often hear tales about the superiority of this issue versus that issue, based on direct comparison of only one example of each issue. Were ALL pedals released as issue X_ identical _to the one being used as the prototypic example, or were there component-tolerance variations that might have changed the sound? Mike Matthews is on record as stating that if one took any four consecutive Big Muff Pi pedals off the assembly line during the 70's, they would all sound different from each other in audible ways, simply because of component tolerances. Nothing wrong about saying one likes X better than Y. But naïve to assume that anything cosmetically or chronologically related to X will _always_ be better than anything cosmetically or chronologically related to Y. It is a naïve expectation of consistency that doesn't really exist.


Sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Roryfan said:


> I'll take the '54......
> View attachment 7960


but that's likely based on sex appeal, not because its actually a better car.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Diablo said:


> but that's likely based on sex appeal, not because its actually a better car.


I don't find it sexy at all but it has a lot of character. To me, much character can often outweigh other factors so that 'better' ends up being exciting on multiple levels instead of the boring 2014 version.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> I don't find it sexy at all but it has a lot of character. To me, much character can often outweigh other factors so that 'better' ends up being exciting on multiple levels instead of the boring 2014 version.


Character, sex appeal, mojo....intangibles, and subjective.
But on paper, compared to todays version when you look at handling, 0-60, top speed, braking distance, fuel economy, crash safety etc....the "car with character" is more like a soap box car with a lawnmower engine in it.


----------



## jtienhaara (Dec 4, 2013)

"Better" is also intangible and subjective.

Take the poll results from those violinists, and do another poll with contemporary violinists 50 years from now, and they won't agree on what the "better" violins are any more than people driving cars 50 years ago / today / 50 years from now could agree on "better" cars

Let alone taking poll results from here in Canada vs. India vs. Brazil. That would be interesting IMO!

"Every bullet has its centre of gravity" - Herder


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Diablo said:


> Character, sex appeal, mojo....intangibles, and subjective.
> But on paper, compared to todays version when you look at handling, 0-60, top speed, braking distance, fuel economy, crash safety etc....the "car with character" is more like a soap box car with a lawnmower engine in it.


Ok...I submit these for the 'on paper' comparison:
-whether or not you can sit on the hood without it caving in as you watch the sunset over the lake
-how much damage in a minor fender to fender altercation
-if you WANT to go for a drive rather than you need to drive somewhere
-work on it yourself instead of going broke at the mechanic shop


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

smorgdonkey said:


> Ok...I submit these for the 'on paper' comparison:
> -whether or not you can sit on the hood without it caving in as you watch the sunset over the lake
> 
> had a 68 mustang. learned not to slam the trunk with your hands on top. guess why
> ...



these days most of the cars you can still work on as a shade tree guy are old enough to be antiques. that (often but not always, of course) means sub par handling, bad fuel economy, and most parts have to be ordered from a specialty service. makes it tough to have one as a daily driver. i know, cause i did it for a long time. up here i suspect it's as big a pita as anything else that has to be imported. besides, speed costs money. getting old iron to go fast is extra expensive these days.
it's not like you can walk into pep boys/auto zone/princess auto and get a set of points for a 66 coronet 318, or a water pump for a 289. and those aren't even the go-fast engines. no way they'd have a timing chain and gears for the 500 caddy in the hearse. nah, i have driven and wrenched on more than my share of old iron. gimme new tech any day. it was fun for a while, though. but it's no longer viable for a working class person.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

Since we're talking cars now.......would you rather have an original 1968 Mustang - or would you rather have a brand new 1968 Mustang just built with all todays technology. Improved brakes, steering, reliabilty, power, sound system, etc, etc......
I'd pick the new one every time.

If you're someone who drives and enjoys driving, lives to drive even and not just a collector - you're going to pick new over vintage.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Lincoln said:


> Since we're talking cars now.......would you rather have an original 1968 Mustang - or would you rather have a brand new 1968 Mustang just built with all todays technology. Improved brakes, steering, reliabilty, power, sound system, etc, etc......
> I'd pick the new one every time.
> 
> If you're someone who drives and enjoys driving, lives to drive even and not just a collector - you're going to pick new over vintage.


I would rather have a newer BMW-740/750. It would say goodbye Mustang and do it in the lap of luxury. But they are not cheap.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

yeah, these days, as a workin man, what i really want is a sporty looking station wagon with a nice stereo and decent fuel economy.


----------



## 4Aaron GE (Jul 12, 2009)

Lincoln said:


> Since we're talking cars now.......would you rather have an original 1968 Mustang - or would you rather have a brand new 1968 Mustang just built with all todays technology. Improved brakes, steering, reliabilty, power, sound system, etc, etc......
> I'd pick the new one every time.
> 
> If you're someone who drives and enjoys driving, lives to drive even and not just a collector - you're going to pick new over vintage.


If you're really interested, Dynacorn makes new bodies for about $16k USD


----------



## Option1 (May 26, 2012)

Lincoln said:


> Since we're talking cars now.......would you rather have an original 1968 Mustang - or would you rather have a brand new 1968 Mustang just built with all todays technology. Improved brakes, steering, reliabilty, power, sound system, etc, etc......
> I'd pick the new one every time.
> 
> If you're someone who drives and enjoys driving, lives to drive even and not just a collector - you're going to pick new over vintage.


Very definitely, neither!

Neil


----------

