System for objective evaluation of guitars

[RJoseph133]

Ahem.

I have over 200 guitars and basses.

My bone stock 1978 P-Bass absolutely shames all of my other basses; this includes comparing Alembic, Tobias (MTD,) Modulus, Steinberger, Zon, etc. This isn't to say that the aforementioned basses are bad; quite the contrary, but...I got my P-Bass for $150.00 in 1984.

My bone stock 1995 PRS Custom 24 absolutely shames all of my other guitars; this includes comparing Gibson, Fender (both Gibson and Fender from the 1950's onward,) Hamer, Steinberger, etc. This isn't to say the aforementioned guitars are bad; quite the contrary, but...I got my 1995 PRS Custom 24 for $1650 in 1997.

One can reasonably rest assured that the quality of a NEW guitar will reflect in its price; A new Gibson, despite what the detractors say, will almost always be better than a new Squier, for instance. A new Hamer will almost always be better than a new Gibson. 'Course, spending $1500 on a new guitar will not guarantee it will be a great or even good, guitar. Confusing enough? Good!

What does this mean? It is absolutely meaningless, as well as impossible to make a "scientific" decision on "the 10 points of guitar (or bass) comparison" simply because every single one is totally different. Even Steinberger's L series of basses and GL series of guitar, all graphite and cranked out of the exact same mold, can, and do, sound radically different from each other.

Why is the hot blonde that you've been pining for hopelessly for years so stuck on her obnoxious, fat, lazy loser boyfriend? Let's solve that question scientifically first; after that's all done, we'll get to guitars! That's a statement in absurdium to prove my point; when you are dealing with intangiables, no science or engineering will ever be able to answer some questions.

Play it. Do you like it? Is it worth what the person selling it is after to your ears?

That is the ONLY way to choose the "right" guitar.

[peedenmark7]

buy as many guitars as your home refinancing, platinum visa, rich wifes inheritance [if applicable] , job at culvers , or car stereo thefts will allow...

next add beer..

then pizza.....

a wool stocking cap, 2lbs of roofing nails and a stick of butter...

mix well, strain.... then serve....

subjective , subjective subjective....

itshard enough to get any 2 people to agree 100% on many things ,especially something like the description of a guitar,...

I doubt you could take a set of twins and get the same answer from them...

guitars, the individuals that describe and play them

are all unique.

you could have 2 mighty fine players, pick up the same guitar through the same rig and both will make the guitar sound different.

if unsure what youre looking at /for ...play before you pay

[jwhitcomb3]

You certainly could scientifically quantify many properties of a guitar. You'd have to invent a rig that could always pick a string in the same place relative to the bridge with the same amount of force, and then you could measure the output from each pickup with the controls set at a certain position. You'd chart the Fourier analysis in 3-D to see how different frequencies sustain and decay over time.

Then you'd have to re-test with a different string height, different string materiels, different string gauges, different pick materials, different pick thicknesses, etc.

But you wouldn't really learn anything about the overall quality of that guitar. And as many have pointed out, even if you lab tested ABC company's XYZ guitar, you'd only have the data for that particular guitar, and not the next XYZ that rolled off the assembly line (and certainly not the next one that came out of a hand made shop).

Even if you could find a guitar whose acoustic properties closely correlated to another's, it will still sound different when you play it from when someone else plays it. So what does all the data actually tell you? And what if you find one that lines up with your wishes on paper but it just doesn't feel good to play?

You are going to strike the string at a different location with a different pick angle and different pick attack than anyone else. You are going to have different strings, different picks and different amps. The way you play the guitar may cause its output to behave differently from the test rig's results.

So you invent a rig that perfectly mimics your own picking style, attack, location and force. You put several different guitars into the rig and look at the output. And you still won't know what they sound or feel like to you. And you'll still have to sit down with each instrument and decide which you like better.

The nice thing about buying a guitar is that it isn't a terribly important decision. If you make a mistake and buy the wrong one for you, just sell it and find one you like better. It is an iterative process, and there are no absolutes. The "perfect" guitar for the way I was playing 10 years ago might sound terrible to me now. My style and tastes have changed, and they will probably continue to do so. I sold my once treasured '89 Tele a few months ago with no regrets. In 1992 I would have told you I'd take that guitar to the grave. I probably wouldn't have given my current favorite a second look. And by a strange coincidence, my current favorite electric guitar is a Hamer Artist Korina P90 which had passed through the hands of two other HFC members who obviously felt they could part with it.

Sometimes I have to adapt guitars to my playing (setup, strings, pickups), sometimes I adapt my playing to suit the guitar. My different guitars make me play differently, bringing out different aspects of my musical personality.

Nobody will ever be able to tell you what the right guitar is for you. Ask 100 well meaning guitarists and you'll probably get 100 different answers. Some might line up with your tastes, others not. But that doesn't make any of their recommendations wrong. You're just asking an impossible question.

What painting should I buy for my living room?

-Jonathan

[polara]

"The nice thing about buying a guitar is that it isn't a terribly important decision. If you make a mistake and buy the wrong one for you, just sell it and find one you like better."

Ditto.

I guess you could get in the ballpark by measuring the "easy" (though not to me) things like neck circumfrence at nut and at 12th fret, pickup output and frequency response, and weight. Then list the components. That's more or less what a car magazine does: it weighs so much, has this much horsepower, and does 0-60 in this and brakes from 60 in that.

But there are too many variables and not enough controls to make a really useful test, I think. Add to the very nature of a guitar (like most purcheses) being half or more emotional... and you you get ot the place car magazines get to, where they usually say "The Yogi XL12 was only third in the skidpad, last in the quarter-mile, and won only the braking competition. Yet there was an undefinable something that made it the most fun to drive of all cars in the test."

Frankly, it doesn't seem that important to me. Just play the thing and if you dig it, buy it unless you don't have the scratch. Then play all the ones you CAN afford and buy the one you like best.

[tafkathundernotes]

What painting should I buy for my living room? 

Get a television. They're cheaper and more fun to look at.

And they'll come up with objective criteria for guitars right after they come up with objective criteria for global warming. The way I see it, if a guitar was "best" in all the categories we'd want to see, I probably couldn't afford the damned thing anyway.

Hey jdrnd: I'm about 8 miles from Daren's Music. We must be something like neighbors.

[jdrnd]

I'm back from a 6 mile hike up haystock mountain in franconia notch, NH. Beautiful day.

Well thanks for all the advice. I didn't know that there was no good barbecue in North Carolina, but I might add, New Hampshire is probably worse.

Peedenmark7's advice about buying as many guitars as I can is excellent advice. I will be telling my wife later about my plans. I understand about the butter, beer pizza and wool hat, but whats with the 2 lbs of nails?

As usual Jonathans advice was reasonable and diplomatic.

"I have over 200 guitars and basses." says rjoseph133. I say "How many over?" No matter what the number I'm gonna have more by tommorrow. Just let me know... but I did appreciate your take on my comments.

If I switched to a bass, I would be having this same thread about basses.

I didn't know you could take your own amplifier to a store when buying a guitar, If I can I will for my next buy (which won't be for a while if I want to stay married)

I appreciate Polara, thundernotes and Hamerhokie, and other peoples as well comments.

All I'm saying is the more in formation we have the better our decisions. And when I bought this guitar I did not know whose advice was sound and whose was not. I bet that if the information did exist it would be used. All of us would be discussing the data, in addition to our subjective opinions. We tend to surround ourselves with like thinking people so we think alike. But in addition to this what's wrong with objective data?

Jeff

[sw686blue]

what's wrong with objective data?

I think that's the problem. Guitars are very subjective and not objective. We each hear and feel differently.

[JohnnyB]

(jdrnd, forgive me if I'm mistaken about your background/profession.  I'm married to a ChemE and I see great similarities in your precise logic, technical writing and quest for quantifiable data - all great qualities, IMO)

Speaking of which, could a chemical analysis of wine possibly determine the overall quality and desirability of a given wine? Not likely.

Would you trust Consumer Reports to use their "objective criteria" to evaluate electric guitars and amps? The word "hamfisted" comes to mind.

That's one reason I like both Stereophile and Car & Driver magazines. They measure everything, but their accompanying subjective reviews continually reinforce that the overall enjoyability of a product can't be reduced to measurements.

Unless you're Mike Lee.

[Steve Haynie]

Objective data would have to be something done under laboratory conditions. Outside of the controlled environment of the lab there would no longer be any way to be objective.

Wood density varies too much. Humidity affects the wood. One person on the production line may carve or sand slightly different from the another person. There are too many variables.

Then there is pizza day at the factory which causes all kinds of problems...

[polara]

It's WESTERN NC that lacks BBQ, not North Carolina

SInce I called Asheville home for nine years and still think of WNC as God's Own Country Where The Sun Shines a Little Purtier, I take umbrage at any anti-WNC digs. However I'll agree that the vinegar-based eastern NC barbeque is the best stuff, period. Beats the Georgia tomato-based variety.

[jdrnd]

“One can reasonably rest assured that the quality of a NEW guitar will reflect in its price...”…” A new Hamer will almost always be better than a new Gibson.”… Rjoseph133

Great statements! How do you prove it?

“You certainly could scientifically quantify many properties of a guitar. You'd have to invent a rig that could always pick a string in the same place relative to the bridge with the same amount of force, and then you could measure the output from each pickup with the controls set at a certain position. You'd chart the Fourier analysis in 3-D to see how different frequencies sustain and decay over time.”Jwhitcomb

Why not do it?

"The nice thing about buying a guitar is that it isn't a terribly important decision. If you make a mistake and buy the wrong one for you, just sell it and find one you like better."Polara

This was my behavior towards computers until I started looking at the stats. Of course now I build my own, using components for which I know their technical specs. And computers are only my hobby.

Get a television. They're cheaper and more fun to look at.

Hey jdrnd (aka jeff(: I'm about 8 miles from Daren's Music. We must be something like neighbors.Thundernotes

We are! I’m 6 miles. Do you know Ron? And I’m looking at buying a Plasma TV AND I am Looking at the technical characteristics before I buy it. Why shouldn’t we check the same when we buy a guitar (answer: because they don’t exist). Take Note Polara; Buying a TV is also not a terribly important decision.

“It all comes down to this - what do you want? You have to KNOW. What tone do you have in your mind? It seems to me you are way to willing to let a salesman do that for you. Salesmen push product. If they sell Fenders they are going to steer you to Fender. Even if you want a Gibson. If you have no idea what you want, they will thank God for sending you.”Hamerhokie

I agree with this statement. I want the best guitar I can get, that sounds good to me. But I don’t want to spend more money because there is a perception that the particular guitar I’m buying kills everything else when in fact its no better than a competing guitar. I want all the facts! The salesman is going to give his opinion as well as Market me. How can I prevent myself from being overly influenced by him without the technical information

“My bone stock 1995 PRS Custom 24 absolutely shames all of my other guitars; this includes comparing Gibson, Fender (both Gibson and Fender from the 1950's onward,) Hamer, Steinberger, etc. This isn't to say the aforementioned guitars are bad; quite the contrary, but...I got my 1995 PRS Custom 24 for $1650 in 1997.”Rjoseph133

Please do not take this personally, I am ripping apart your statement as an example of why I would like more objective criteria. I could have taken a lot of other peoples comments… but I picked yours.

Your comment is a testimonial. Like this statement “I saw Godzilla and it was the greatest movie ever, you should see it too.” It’s my opinion as is The PRS comment your opinion.

Okay So in what way does your PRS shame your other guitars?

What do you mean by using the word ”shame”?

1. Do you mean “better than”, “mocks”… Shame is an indistinct word.

2. And if it is “better than”, in what way is it better?

3. Do you mean that the PRS has more volume, better overtones, better sustain, better action, better looks, better ish kabible?

4. And for every one of those criteria, by how much is it better

5. Its your opinion, why is your opinion worth more than someone else’s opinion who might have equal playing experience as you but has a different opinion?

"Would you trust Consumer Reports to use their "objective criteria" to evaluate electric guitars and amps? The word "hamfisted" comes to mind."Johnny B

Absolutely not!!! But I might trust a group of dedicated musicians who want to get to the truth and do not own any of the guitar companies

“It's WESTERN NC that lacks BBQ, not North Carolina ”Polara

I humbly apologize!

Jeff

[jwhitcomb3]

Jeff, it comes down to this:

All the technical specs in the world for a guitar will just tell you how two guitars are different, not which one is better, because with guitars "better" is entirely in the ears, eyes and hands of the beholder.

The technical specs for the components of the computer you are using help you because in general you can immediately make judgements about how the component will affect your system based on the specs, and you can generally be sure that the specs of the part that you buy will match those of the one tested and reviewed, and that your computer will change in a reliably expected manner as a result of the change. That doesn't work in general for guitars. Look how many posts on this forum there are of people saying "I tried pickup X in my new guitar because I loved it in another guitar, but I don't like it in this one."

To again answer your question about why not build the rig to chart the fourier analysis of the frequency response of a plucked string over time: even if you had this data it would (1) only be valid for the specific instrument tested with a specific set of strings and that specific setup and (2) not be a useful indicator of the suitability of an instrument for any specific guitarist.

To put it in scientific terms: you can't solve the problem mathematically because there are too many variables and not enough equations. In folksy terms: one man's trash is another man's treasure.

At the end of the day if you had a bunch of numbers telling you that the Artist Korina P90 was the best possible guitar in the world for your playing, would you enjoy it any more?

-Jonathan

edited because the smiley tool was changing my "(a) and (b )" (without the space) into (a) and (

[RJoseph133]

"I have over 200 guitars and basses." says rjoseph133. I say "How many over?" No matter what the number I'm gonna have more by tommorrow. Just let me know... but I did appreciate your take on my comments.

Last time I counted, 24 over. Of course, I've added a few since the last time I actually did count.

No Squiers or Epiphones, either.

You don't have to believe me.

[jdrnd]

Jonathan,

Nothing you or anyone else has said is mutually exclusive from what I am saying. Your comment below

All the technical specs in the world for a guitar will just tell you how two guitars are different, not which one is better, because with guitars "better" is entirely in the ears, eyes and hands of the beholder.

Of course this is true. But there are many guitars that are perceived to be similar with different prices which in reality may be equal. We are all influenced by hype. If you repeat a statement enough and all the people you surround yourself with repeat it you beleive it even if objective reality says otherwise. The HFC as do some dealers (but not others) promote the notion that Hamer guitars are close if not equal in Value to Gibson's but at a lower price. That is an opinion. What if its not true. What if you get put in a room (with your permission) and you get to listen to 20 guitars with the same amp and the same guitarist playing the same music and your asked to rate the guitars. In those 20 guitars would be a few Hamers a few Gibsons, a few PRSs, and a few guitars, that if named, all of us, due to our bias, would perceive as not so good. What if after hearing them in a blinded situation you could tell that one guitar sounded different than the other, but you couldn't give them a rating (in other words they all sounded of equal value). By the way blinding the test is key. You can't answer the question because such as test doesn't exist. When you go the dealer you know what your playing when your playing it.

To develop this further. Perhaps if Guitars are studied by objective means and it might turn out that there is an optimum sustain which most experienced guitarists prefer, even from instrument to instrument. Or their is a particular overtone seen in guitars as varied as a PRS Santana to a Hamer studio, that attracts people. If we knew what these parameters are that we are attracted to, those guitars would be more sought after. Of course there is a subjective component, but maybe there is also an objective component. Arguing that there isn't an objective component is silly because it hasn't been studied. You can't provide the data to refute that last statement because the data doesn't exist.

Somebody in this thread said that Gibson no longer uses engineers. They just live off of their reputation. Why should they spend the money for those engineers? After representatives of Gibson or other guitar companies read this thread and see that not a single person other than myself see's any value in objective measurements, of course there going to continue to do the same thing. If we want them to devlop better guitars based on technology we have to make some noise that its important to us.... Okay I'm spent.

...and rjoseph133 you still have more guitars than me even if its not 200. I believe you that you have 24. I actually have 5 in the house, I'm only 19 short of tying you.

Jeff

[BadgerDave]

I'm with Jeff. It's time to remove the fetters of subversive marketing hype and rise up! What we need is a grassroots movement to demand the objective analysis of guitars!

Who's with us?

chirp . . .

chirp . . .

chirp . . .

Hey, what the . . .

[Mad Man Mike]

With all this talking about guitars and what rating system to use. I think my brain is burning out. I need smoething of my head. someone give me a drink right away like now. Maybe a shot of Black Velvet will do.

[jdrnd]

I prefer Myer's Rum.

I know what your all going to say... "Where's the objective evidence that (myers rum) is better?

and I'm going say "I don't care what the objective evidence says?"

and everybody is going to chime in "Told you so!!!"

but the "whats your favorite alcohol when your brain needs a rest" poll is a different thread.

Whether you guys (or girls) goof on me or not for bringing this subject up I still think that if most people agreed that objective measurments of guitar would be helpful. Somebody would start to accumulate them. The surprising results would lead to changes not only in how people picked guitars, but in the price structure and quality of instruments. Gibson and other companies would have to obtain engineers to better measure their instruments. There would be improvements in all instruments. And upstart companies who are trying to make quality instruments would be recognized in a shorter period of time because they would have data to show rather than just testimonials from lesser known profesional guitarists. This would mean more good guitars to chose from and lower prices.

If only this was the late 60s again. That was the time for revolution. "...I'm just pining for the fjords" (my apologees to Monty Python). and I'm running out of steam.

Jeff

[RJoseph133]

...and rjoseph133 you still have more guitars than me even if its not 200.  I believe you that you have 24.  I actually have 5 in the house, I'm only 19 short of tying you.

Um, dude...that would be 224. 24 over 200. Well, actually more.

I'm really not proud of the collection's number in itself, but it most certainly gives me a pretty good grasp on what is "good" or not in the guitar/bass world. Which, in a roundabout way, when I say one guitar in my collection "shames" the rest, there is a pretty good gauging point. As I've previously said, you don't have to believe me.

My wife would rather your number be right.

[jwhitcomb3]

Um, dude...that would be 224. 24 over 200. Well, actually more.

I imagine that "stringing day" is pretty chaotic at your place!

Where do you keep 'em all? Do you have a rotation system? Are they insured?

-Jonathan

[jdrnd]

The logistics are mind boggling. Where do you keep them? How many do you play per day? How do feed them all? At an average cost $500/ guitar thats $112,000 worth of instruments (excluding amps, guitar stands, cables, other toys). At an average price of $1000/guitar thats $224,000 etc. WOW. I don't even have 200 pictures of guitars (wait a minute, let me count the number of pictures in the Hamer catalogue).

Do you have a group shot? The number is too outrageous not to believe? Are you a guitar dealer?

I stand corrected I'm 219 short.

jeff

[darc]

Jeff, I think you'd be surprised at how many HFC members have collections like RJoseph's. That number doesn't even catch my attention anymore. 200 guitars. Pfffft.

I'm not a collector, myself, but a lot of HFCers are.

[JohnnyB]

Whether you guys (or girls) goof on me or not for bringing this subject up I still think that if most people agreed that objective measurments of guitar would be helpful.

Well, there's one more factor no one's brought up, and that's economics. If one were to devise measurements and tests that cover all the bases (and you also have to test the tests, to make sure they test and measure what you want to test and measure and not something else), it would be an expensive protracted process, which eventually might or might not turn into an enormously expensive operation for which there would be very little market. It would attempt to answer a question that very few people besides yourself are asking.

Such a battery of tests and parameters could also result in guitars getting worse. If the idea caught on, or (heaven forbid) the government mandated it to eliminate subjective advertising claims, the manufacturers would start designing the guitars to excel in the tests. Period.

It happened before when the FTC got involved in the ratings for amplifiers. After the ratings and testing rules changed, the manufacturers changed their products to pass the tests--not to sound good--and the result was a decided drop in the sound and build quality of the entry-level and mid-level home audio.

[RJoseph133]

Sorry; no group shot of all of them...I do however, have a group shot of all of my Hamer basses, well, at least the Hamer basses that I used to have. I have added a few and subtracted a few since it was taken. I have a few nice Hamer guitars, as well.

They are all insured; the yearly premium is pretty steep, and the guitars that I play out at gigs are NOT covered by this insurance; it only covers the "collection."

Most of them live in a storage vault at my business. My current playmates, give or take a few, live in their cases on shelves in my basement "music room." Believe it or not, they all manage to get played.

I have never re-strung more than one at a time! The worst "re-stringing" ones are the Rickenbacker 12 string guitars, without a doubt. Hamer 12 string basses are expensive, but easy to string!

As Darc has said, there are a few of us here with some purty cool collections; Mr. Fung and Mr. Maye are two people just off the top of my head who have fantastic collections, as well as being great guys.

[kizanski]

....please make it stop....

[RJoseph133]

Do you have a group shot?  The number is too outrageous not to believe?  Are you a guitar dealer?

Nah, just a collector. I SHOULD sell 90% of them. I really just don't know where to start...

Not to get too "real world" here, but last year I was in the stages of divorce (thankfully now reconciled) and the "asset division" of most of my collection (the ones I picked up before we got married didn't count) was a big chunk of Eddie Murphy's famous "half."