# Blue Ridge vs. Martins



## Steadfastly

The Blue Ridge guitars have often been compared to Martins with some dealers even producing comparisons lists of Blue Ridge models comparable to Martins. Has anyone here had any experience in comparing (comparable models).

I know the Blue Ridge is a Chinese company and some will still say that is a negative but I don't believe that. There are good and poor manufacturers in all parts of the world. So, please, let's keep the country of origin our of this discussion.

However, it may be interesting for you to know that Blueridge Guitars are designed by the same American musician who manufactures Kentucky Mandolins and Regal Resophonic Guitars. . The Blueridge Guitars are built in *China* to his specifications.

All thoughts and experience(s) please.


----------



## Guncho

I've never seen a Blueridge in person but there's lots of comparison videos out there and it's been discussed to death on various forums.

If they were stocked in a store in the GTA I would definitely check them out although I find the head stock inlays can be pretty gaudy.

PS It's Blueridge not Blue Ridge.


----------



## jimmy c g

havnt played one cause they dont show up here, ( that may be the big problem with them,) but they definetley seem like a nice git, prices are climbing tho...still Id love to try a solid rosewood model ...with bling.... keep us posted when you try one cheers J


----------



## rollingdam

Every guitar has its own voice and tone is subjective..however they are nice guitars for what they are.

The gaudy headstock bling on the older ones,appeat to be decals only.


----------



## guitarman2

I had a chance to compare a Blueridge BR-260 to my Martin HD-28V in my home. I certainly wouldn't call it an equal. The brazilian rosewood on the back and sides is from stumpwood and figuring is quite wild to the point of kind of ugly. This particular one was supposed to have an adirondack top. Tonewise nothing special. Pretty good for what it was and would be good value. Some have said their Blueridge guitars are as good or better than Martins. I guess if its all I could afford I'd say that to but it wouldn't make it true.
Some wouldn't touch merely cause of the questionable origins of the wood. Some say in China they don't always respect CITES laws so they stay away due to ethical reasons. These same people say they wouldn't own a Madagascar Martin.


----------



## Steadfastly

Guncho said:


> I've never seen a Blueridge in person but there's lots of comparison videos out there and it's been discussed to death on various forums.
> 
> If they were stocked in a store in the GTA I would definitely check them out although I find the head stock inlays can be pretty gaudy.
> 
> _*PS It's Blueridge not Blue Ridge.*_


Thanks for the correction.


----------



## High/Deaf

I have a Yamaki AY390S. It's a copy of a D35 with D41 levels of inlay. Back then the same comparison was made about them. As good as a Martin. There have been others between then and now, like Sigma or Takamine. 

What I haven't heard is anyone wondering how some of these new Martins compare to any of those, it's always the other way around.


----------



## guitarman2

High/Deaf said:


> What I haven't heard is anyone wondering how some of these new Martins compare to any of those, it's always the other way around.


Because Martin is the standard by which to compare, not the other way. Blueridge is making copies of Martins, not the other way.


----------



## Lord-Humongous

For whatever it's worth, there are a few 'high end' Blueridges that I've noticed on my local Kijiji for quite a long time. Then, I saw a really nice Martin pop up, and it was listed here too by a board member who's also local. That Martin looks like it sold right away. So, I'm thinking that the Blueridges might well be wonderful guitars but unless you will keep it forever, it might be better to buy the real deal, then you won't be stuck with a guitar that you can't sell down the road.


----------



## ronmac

As mentioned previously, some of the ornamentation has been quite gaudy, to me.

The deal breaker for me is the narrow neck. I haven't found any that I would take over a Martin.


----------



## Steadfastly

Lord-Humongous said:


> * So, I'm thinking that the Blueridges might well be wonderful guitars but unless you will keep it forever, it might be better to buy the real deal, then you won't be stuck with a guitar that you can't sell down the road.*


That is not even a consideration. I don't even give one second of consideration of reselling when I buy a guitar or other musical instrument or accessory but thanks for your opinion.


----------



## Steadfastly

ronmac said:


> As mentioned previously, some of the ornamentation has been quite gaudy, to me.
> 
> The deal breaker for me is the narrow neck. I haven't found any that I would take over a Martin.


I did look up the comparison sheet from Maury's Music and some of the Blueridge (see Guncho, I got it right this time) guitars actually have a wider neck than the Martins.

I do wonder, though, what makes the "gaudy" to you?


----------



## Guncho

Steadfastly said:


> That is not even a consideration. I don't even give one second of consideration of reselling when I buy a guitar or other musical instrument or accessory but thanks for your opinion.


I take resale into consideration.


----------



## Steadfastly

Guncho said:


> I take resale into consideration.


Like you, many do as they do a lot of buying, trading and selling. When I make up my mind to buy a guitar, it is with a lot of research and trial as I plan to keep them. For the same reason, I don't care what is on the headstock but only what comes out of the sound hole or pickups.


----------



## vadsy

You can support a company that pays and treats its people at a level you would want to be treated with or you can support slave labour and the grey market. Don't forget to feel good about yourself,... you saved some cash and got a bargain, unfortunately you fell for the marketing because the headstock is a peel and stick decal but hey the Youtube comparison videos are scientifically controlled, accuracy is strived for. I kid, kinda. Check back on the Blue Ridge in 8 years, fretboard is peeling, bracing is buzzing and the finish is cracked. Find a Martin in the burned out ruins after WW3 and its still in tune.


----------



## dradlin

If a Blueridge doesn't have a serviceable neck joint and thus not a candidate for an eventual neck reset, then it isn't even close to being in the same league as a Martin.

While Blueridge has a dovetail neck joint, if it's glued with epoxy it's not coming apart. I don't know what they use, but would want to know before buying.

Consider any acoustic guitar with a non-serviceable neck joint to be disposable.


----------



## guitarman2

Guncho said:


> I take resale into consideration.


Then you might want to look at something other than Blueridge. The BR-260 that someone brought over to my house, I was considering on taking a trade towards something the blueridge owner wanted, but I only considered so I could then offer it up for trade for something I wanted. I shopped around at some dealers and no one would touch it. No one would even consider it. This is a guitar with Brazilian RW back and sides. It was definitely a decent enough sounding guitar.


----------



## guitarman2

Steadfastly said:


> Like you, many do as they do a lot of buying, trading and selling. When I make up my mind to buy a guitar, it is with a lot of research and trial as I plan to keep them. For the same reason, I don't care what is on the headstock but only what comes out of the sound hole or pickups.


Some people keep their guitars for ever and some don't. I suppose the ones that know they don't need to consider resale.
I'm that way with cars. Most people consider resale with cars (hence they gravitate towards Honda and Toyota) where as I don't. I drive cars till the wheels fall of if possible.


----------



## guitarman2

vadsy said:


> You can support a company that pays and treats its people at a level you would want to be treated with or you can support slave labour and the grey market. Don't forget to feel good about yourself,... you saved some cash and got a bargain, unfortunately you fell for the marketing because the headstock is a peel and stick decal but hey the Youtube comparison videos are scientifically controlled, accuracy is strived for. I kid, kinda. Check back on the Blue Ridge in 8 years, fretboard is peeling, bracing is buzzing and the finish is cracked. Find a Martin in the burned out ruins after WW3 and its still in tune.


The BR-260 I played was about 12 years old and it was in perfect shape.


----------



## vadsy

guitarman2 said:


> The BR-260 I played was about 12 years old and it was in perfect shape.


It was probably a counterfeit.


----------



## guitarman2

vadsy said:


> It was probably a counterfeit.


Cool a counterfiet of chinese made guitars that last better than the original.


----------



## vadsy

guitarman2 said:


> Cool a counterfiet of chinese made guitars that last better than the original.


It's happening, the day is upon us. I do have to wonder, who's behind the counterfeits? Is it the Russians or maybe aliens? How deep does this go?


----------



## bw66

Played a couple several years ago. They played fine, but, as others have also said, I find them gaudy. Also, I'd be curious to know if they come with a lifetime warrantee as Martin and other high end guitars do. They may, I just don't know. 

I also get the comments about serviceability. I have a 35 year old "TakaMartin" that was a great guitar for me for 25 of those years, but I'm told that it is unserviceable because they saved a buck when it was built by putting in a laminate bridgeplate - which is why I ultimately had to replace it. I still play it, but once the bridgeplate finally goes, the guitar is done, unless I decide to spend way too much to fix it (which I may, for sentimental reasons).


----------



## Steadfastly

guitarman2 said:


> Some people keep their guitars for ever and some don't. I suppose the ones that know they don't need to consider resale.
> *I'm that way with cars. Most people consider resale with cars (hence they gravitate towards Honda and Toyota) where as I don't. I drive cars till the wheels fall of if possible.*


Me too........well, just before the wheels fall off.


----------



## Steadfastly

dradlin said:


> If a Blueridge doesn't have a serviceable neck joint and thus not a candidate for an eventual neck reset, then it isn't even close to being in the same league as a Martin.
> 
> While Blueridge has a dovetail neck joint, if it's glued with epoxy it's not coming apart. I don't know what they use, but would want to know before buying.
> 
> Consider any acoustic guitar with a non-serviceable neck joint to be disposable.


That is a good point and one to consider, which I did not until about 45 seconds ago. I am sure it had something to do with your post.


----------



## SeriusNtentions

Niether! i am saving up for a Larivee L-03R!


----------



## BEACHBUM

High/Deaf said:


> I have a Yamaki AY390S. It's a copy of a D35 with D41 levels of inlay. Back then the same comparison was made about them. As good as a Martin. There have been others between then and now, like Sigma or Takamine.
> 
> What I haven't heard is anyone wondering how some of these new Martins compare to any of those, it's always the other way around.


I've got a 1980 Japanese Sigma D10 Anniversary model that I got back in the mid 80's in trade for an old stand up piano. The thing's got tons of volume and great tone. It has turned out to be my all time favorite acoustic. In 06 I put out some big bucks for a Martin DC Aura but sold it a few years later. It was a super nice guitar but it just didn't outclass the Sigma the way I thought it would.


----------



## High/Deaf

BEACHBUM said:


> I've got a 1980 Japanese Sigma D10 Anniversary model that I got back in the mid 80's in trade for an old stand up piano. The thing's got tons of volume and great tone. It has turned out to be my all time favorite acoustic. In 06 I put out some big bucks for a Martin DC Aura but sold it a few years later. It was a super nice guitar but it just didn't outclass the Sigma the way I thought it would.


I don't know anything about those Auras or other new Martin's. If I'm looking at a Martin, I'm more inclined to be looking at D18/28/35's. That's the Martin sound and if it ain't broke.......

That was the time I was selling Sigma's and they were great bang for the buck, especially their higher end guitars. We sold a lot of Sigma and Yamaha, very comparable guitars that hit distinct markets. I wish I would've bought one of the good Sigma's that past through the store.

That said, I think about the nice 60s Gretsches and Fender blackface amps we could barely give away in a hairmetal world gone wrong. I was so young and naive.


----------



## Mooh

Two things with which I disagree stated in this thread. That an epoxied neck and a laminated bridge plate makes a guitar unserviceable. Anything made of wood can be fixed, however it's held together. I've personally seen epoxied necks cut off flush with the body and turned into bolt-ons and all manner of bridge plates removed and replaced. Perhaps the manufacturer won't do the work but many others can and will.


----------



## bw66

Mooh said:


> Two things with which I disagree stated in this thread. That an epoxied neck and a laminated bridge plate makes a guitar unserviceable. Anything made of wood can be fixed, however it's held together. I've personally seen epoxied necks cut off flush with the body and turned into bolt-ons and all manner of bridge plates removed and replaced. Perhaps the manufacturer won't do the work but many others can and will.


"Unserviceable" is probably the wrong word... the luthier that I spoke to about it, discovered the problem when I took the guitar to him for something else. He basically said that it would cost too much to fix relative to the guitar's worth, and that if the guitar had been built with a solid wood bridgeplate, it would be a much easier fix because it could be repaired without removing the bridgeplate. As I said, I may still get it fixed one day for sentimental reasons.


----------



## guitarman2

bw66 said:


> He basically said that it would cost too much to fix relative to the guitar's worth,


Thats the definition of the "unservicable" to me.
Pretty much anything can be fixed if you have unlimited funds to throw at it.


----------



## Mister1k

guitarman2 said:


> I had a chance to compare a Blueridge BR-260 to my Martin HD-28V in my home. I certainly wouldn't call it an equal. The brazilian rosewood on the back and sides is from stumpwood and figuring is quite wild to the point of kind of ugly. This particular one was supposed to have an adirondack top. Tonewise nothing special. Pretty good for what it was and would be good value. Some have said their Blueridge guitars are as good or better than Martins. I guess if its all I could afford I'd say that to but it wouldn't make it true.
> Some wouldn't touch merely cause of the questionable origins of the wood. Some say in China they don't always respect CITES laws so they stay away due to ethical reasons. These same people say they wouldn't own a Madagascar Martin.


LMAO, really. 
You never even played a chord. You never let it ring.
You picked a couple licks,thats it thats all, at a thousand miles an hour.
Maybe i should have put extra lights on for you instead of the mediums.Lol.
It smokes your Hdv28 tone wise
More sustain,more projection.
I own a 2012 d-18 as well (it was Dwayne Rutters guitar)
,while the d18 is warmer the Blueridge still eats it for dinner.
Cities law is laughable to someone who purchases/trades a guitar for tone and playability.
I traded a 1971 J45 square shoulder ,adj bridge dog of a guitar for
A Pre war copy of a D28 Martin. Aka Golden era, Blueridge Br 260 2004,
Small run of 3 years.Sitka spruce top not adirondack.
Thats the new Br260A with Santos rosewood and adirondack top. 2750 Msrp.
Not 4125 Msrp for my 04 Br 260.
Stumpwood, old growth, pretty or ugly
Its Brazilian,sitka with grain spacing so tight its insane,mahogany neck,slab ebony fingerboard,
Ebony bridge,with small maple plate,bone nut and saddle,ebony pins,headstock inlaid with matched braz
from body( peeling LMAO)closed back butterbean tuners that never go out of tune.
There is nothing synthetic about this guitar.
The pickguard is era correct,the spacing of the tuners is era correct,A string rubs the E post.
The aged toner on the top makes it look 50 years old. The frets are large,era correct.
Volute present,era correct body dimensions. Herringbone trim.
If it was a BMW it would be an M3.
The prewar D28 is the holy grail and this guitar is as close
as you can get. 
But then again,you bought a golden era d-18 without playing it.
what do i know?


----------



## guitarman2

Mister1k said:


> LMAO, really.
> You never even played a chord. You never let it ring.
> You picked a couple licks,thats it thats all, at a thousand miles an hour.
> Maybe i should have put extra lights on for you instead of the mediums.Lol.
> It smokes your Hdv28 tone wise
> More sustain,more projection.
> I own a 2012 d-18 as well (it was Dwayne Rutters guitar)
> ,while the d18 is warmer the Blueridge still eats it for dinner.
> Cities law is laughable to someone who purchases/trades a guitar for tone and playability.
> I traded a 1971 J45 square shoulder ,adj bridge dog of a guitar for
> A Pre war copy of a D28 Martin. Aka Golden era, Blueridge Br 260 2004,
> Small run of 3 years.Sitka spruce top not adirondack.
> Thats the new Br260A with Santos rosewood and adirondack top. 2750 Msrp.
> Not 4125 Msrp for my 04 Br 260.
> Stumpwood, old growth, pretty or ugly
> Its Brazilian,sitka with grain spacing so tight its insane,mahogany neck,slab ebony fingerboard,
> Ebony bridge,with small maple plate,bone nut and saddle,ebony pins,headstock inlaid with matched braz
> from body( peeling LMAO)closed back butterbean tuners that never go out of tune.
> There is nothing synthetic about this guitar.
> The pickguard is era correct,the spacing of the tuners is era correct,A string rubs the E post.
> The aged toner on the top makes it look 50 years old. The frets are large,era correct.
> Volute present,era correct body dimensions. Herringbone trim.
> If it was a BMW it would be an M3.
> The prewar D28 is the holy grail and this guitar is as close
> as you can get.
> But then again,you bought a golden era d-18 without playing it.
> what do i know?


Okkaaay. Maybe you were drunk or high. I played it for about 20 minutes. I let it ring. Maybe it seemed fast because it really didn't ring that long.
Yes I guess in your mind it smokes my HD28V. Thats why you can't get rid of it. Along with your broken down D-18 that you tried to trade.
And yes I bought a D-18GE without playing it. If I didn't like it (which I ended up not) I could turn it over for very little loss due to the price I got it for from my US source.
I also bought a D-28 Authentic without playing it, although I did play one before hand at 12th fret.
As for your blueridge eating your d-18 for dinner, well your comparing 2 completely different tonewoods. So I guess thats where your discernment lies.
I've been playing and have owned all kinds of low end to high end instruments for 40 years and I wouldn't touch your blueridge unless maybe for about 1k if I happened to be in the market for a lower end d-28 style guitar.
And I only mention the CITES thing as it means something to some. Not me obviously. I've seen some users on forums get all self righteous about Madagascar. I have a guitar with Madi so it doesn't concern me like some. As for buying products from China, if this sort of thing bothers you China does largely drive the illegal trade industry.
I honestly don't say any of this to be mean and your quite welcome to continue on deluded if you like, as I have no skin in the game. I'm not saying all blueridge guitars are bad. As I said previously your guitar was decent sounding for what it was and I admit it wasn't that far behind my HD28V so good value. But "smoke it"? Yeah someones smoking.
And who cares if Dwayne Rutter owned your guitar. Does that make it more valuable. I'd have to say that pickup installation was the worst hack job I've ever seen. In your own words, "he jumped at the chance to trade for your Gibson and wanted to get out of there before you changed your mind. There was a reason for that haste. And now we all have a better perspective on your judgment with guitars.


----------



## Guncho




----------



## Morkolo

I've had both a Blueridge BR180 and a Martin D18. Sound is all about preference of the player and to my ears I prefer the D18. Build quality is another story as that Blueridge was possibly the worst guitar I've owned to date with that pretty binding peeling off in multiple places, the neck twisted, there was more but I try to forget it these days. The Martin on the other hand plays great, sounds great and has nothing peeling or twisting to date. No comparison in my opinion.


----------



## dradlin

Mooh said:


> Two things with which I disagree stated in this thread. That an epoxied neck and a laminated bridge plate makes a guitar unserviceable. Anything made of wood can be fixed, however it's held together. I've personally seen epoxied necks cut off flush with the body and turned into bolt-ons and all manner of bridge plates removed and replaced. Perhaps the manufacturer won't do the work but many others can and will.



I fully disagree. Cost to repair, residual value before and after the repair, future serviceability, are some of valid concerns that are weighed in the repair process. Just because something can be repaired doesn't mean it should be repaired.

I've performed multiple neck resets on both serviceable and unserviceable (epoxied) neck joints using the method you describe. While sawing through the epoxied neck joint extends the use of the guitar, it is far different and inferior to a traditional neck reset on a traditional dovetail joint.

Epoxied dovetail or mortise/tenon necks are not intended to be serviced. You may get away with a bridge shave, but otherwise the guitar is intended to be discarded and replaced.


----------



## Mooh

dradlin said:


> I fully disagree. Cost to repair, residual value before and after the repair, future serviceability, are some of valid concerns that are weighed in the repair process. Just because something can be repaired doesn't mean it should be repaired.
> 
> I've performed multiple neck resets on both serviceable and unserviceable (epoxied) neck joints using the method you describe. While sawing through the epoxied neck joint extends the use of the guitar, it is far different and inferior to a traditional neck reset on a traditional dovetail joint.
> 
> Epoxied dovetail or mortise/tenon necks are not intended to be serviced. You may get away with a bridge shave, but otherwise the guitar is .


Interesting that you sate you "fully disagree" then go on to mention things I didn't address and say that you've done multiple resets in the manner I mention.

I never mentioned cost, residual value, or future serviceability because I agree they are concerns. I also agree with your statement, "While sawing through the epoxied neck joint extends the use of the guitar, it is far different and inferior to a traditional neck reset on a traditional dovetail joint."

However, I stand by my statement that anything made of wood can be fixed however it's assembled. A great many people would be happy to see an instrument restored regardless of cost or advisability, for reasons ranging from sentiment to responsibility to stubbornness to that's all they got (ie, quick and easy, let's see how long this lasts kind of desperation). I personally see lots of folks who accept less than perfection just to have their playable guitar back. Some of these folks attempt the repair themselves, with varying results naturally. I can remember an instrument repair course where such things were the order of the day. With proper counsel, disposal was avoided.

Now, I don't advise even buying a guitar "intended to be discarded and replaced" as it just seems crazy to me, but people do what people do and it's wasteful to accept that instruments are disposable.


----------



## TheYanChamp

vadsy said:


> Find a Martin in the burned out ruins after WW3 and its still in tune.


This. 

I find for acoustics you can always find cheap guitars that sound better than one particular X brand high end model. Try it next time you're browsing. Last time out, $300 cheapy whose name I already forgot vs a Gibson J45, guess who won? Will it last a lifetime and sound great recorded, or amplified, who knows. In the room the cheapy had the better sound and with a setup would feel similar.

Rocking the D35 since 2000.


----------



## dradlin

Mooh said:


> Now, I don't advise even buying a guitar "intended to be discarded and replaced" as it just seems crazy to me, but people do what people do and it's wasteful to accept that instruments are disposable.


Therefore you advise against acoustic instruments made by: Takamine; Yamaha; current Godin (Seagull, Norman, S&P, A&L); Epiphone; Fender; Washburn;... and more too exhaustive to list.

I won't go so far to advise against purchasing any of those, but rather choose to educate the consumer so they understand what they are buying in comparison to a guitar with a serviceable neck joint.

My use of the term "unserviceable" absolutely applies to any neck joint that cannot be separated, neck set angle corrected, and re-fixed while preserving the original joint. Thus an epoxied neck is "unserviceable".

Understand too that it's not me deeming these neck joints to be "unserviceable", it's their manufacturers... they replace under warranty, they seldom repair. If they do service them it's by shaving or replacing the bridge to correct neck set angle, not by resetting the neck.

Yes, I have done bolt-on conversions of epoxied necks, and thus I can speak from that position of experience. Would I do it again - under very select terms. 

You are welcome to your opinion on what is "serviceable" and "worth" repair, as I'm entitled to mine.

Fully "serviceable" acoustic guitars in my view include Martin, Gibson, Larrivee, Taylor, Collings, and those sharing similar material and construction features. Buy those and there is less chance they will end up discarded.


----------



## dradlin

Let me add too, that my original post to this thread was in specific regards to the serviceability of the neck joint, not the serviceability of the entire instrument.


----------



## brokentoes

I have a Blueridge BR-63 from 2007. I picked it up for a song used but flawless with a nice Guardian hardshell case included. I wanted a smaller guitar (OOO sized) for the couch and i have to say i am impressed with it. Solid top and it has not changed at all in nearly 10 years. I guess i got lucky. Nice tone and it is a real fun guitar to play.


----------



## Guncho

Cheap guitars are pretty much disposable these days.

When a brand new Yamaha FG800 costs $270 new, doing even a $65 + strings + tax setup on it is almost a third of it's value.

Are you going to do fret work or a neck reset on a similar value guitar when a new one is $270?


----------



## Steadfastly

Guncho said:


> Cheap guitars are pretty much disposable these days.
> 
> When a brand new Yamaha FG800 costs $270 new, doing even a $65 + strings + tax setup on it is almost a third of it's value.
> 
> Are you going to do fret work or a neck reset on a similar value guitar when a new one is $270?


Good point.


----------



## jdto

Guncho said:


> Cheap guitars are pretty much disposable these days.
> 
> When a brand new Yamaha FG800 costs $270 new, doing even a $65 + strings + tax setup on it is almost a third of it's value.
> 
> Are you going to do fret work or a neck reset on a similar value guitar when a new one is $270?


I'd still get it set up so it plays nicely. There's not much point in having a guitar that isn't set up to your liking. But beyond that, yeah, I agree.


----------



## Guncho

I find your standard acoustic setup is so basic I'm not paying someone almost $100 to do it.

Seriously what's there to your standard acoustic setup?
Adjust truss rod if necessary
Lower saddle if necessary
Remove old strings
Clean fretboard
Polish frets
Put new strings on


----------



## Guncho

When I started playing in bands years ago I had multiple guitars. I think I paid for one setup and realized how much it was going to cost me to have multiple guitars setup on any kind of regular basis so I bought a book on guitar setups, a few tools and figured it out. 

It's really not that hard. Especially an acoustic. There's only so many things you can adjust.

Any serious repair or modification I'll gladly take it to an expert but semi annual setups? I'll just do it myself.


----------



## jdto

Guncho said:


> I find your standard acoustic setup is so basic I'm not paying someone almost $100 to do it.
> 
> Seriously what's there to your standard acoustic setup?
> Adjust truss rod if necessary
> Lower saddle if necessary
> Remove old strings
> Clean fretboard
> Polish frets
> Put new strings on


Fair point. I do my own setups like that. But a lot of new guitars from the factory do need some fretwork, which I'm not really equipped to do. It's amazing how even some minor fretwork and filing the nut slots to an ideal height can make a guitar play much better. It's worth the money if one can't do it oneself, I think.


----------



## Morkolo

Guncho said:


> I find your standard acoustic setup is so basic I'm not paying someone almost $100 to do it.
> 
> Seriously what's there to your standard acoustic setup?
> Adjust truss rod if necessary
> Lower saddle if necessary
> Remove old strings
> Clean fretboard
> Polish frets
> Put new strings on


I agree with you as I do my own setups but some guys just don't have the skills and it doesn't matter how many youtube videos or books they read.


----------



## taylor96

had a BR160 for a few years.. great guitar with a smooth sound... needed some cash so sold it to a friend and he loves it....


----------



## Wardo

Guncho said:


> I find your standard acoustic setup is so basic I'm not paying someone almost $100 to do it.
> 
> Seriously what's there to your standard acoustic setup?
> Adjust truss rod if necessary
> Lower saddle if necessary
> Remove old strings
> Clean fretboard
> Polish frets
> Put new strings on


Same here. I started messing with setup on cheap Sears guitars when I was in grade school trying get them to play better. 

Only thing I haven't done is nut height which is usually a one shot deal anyway. Pretty sure I could do it just don't have the files and only one of my current guitars needed that done anyway which they did right there at the 12th Fret when I bought it. All the others I've done myself and so far so good. Did setup on my mandolin too and now it's better than it was.


----------

