# Recommend some better-than-entry-level acoustic



## TedEH

Pretty simple -> I'm looking potentially for another acoustic. It's getting close to xmas+bday time of the year, and I usually use this as an opportunity to just buy myself a thing, because why not. I currently have an acoustic but it's old and playing it is a bit of a fight - intonation isn't quite right anymore, the action is kind of off, the whole thing is kind of beat up. I don't think it was ever a fantastic instrument, but it served its time. It might be time for an acoustic that isn't on the cheapest end, isn't 30 years old, and isn't beaten to death.

What I'm looking for is something that:
- Is dreadnought shaped, or at least pretty close.
- Could consider with a cutaway, but not picky either way
- Preferably a natural-ish finish, no bursts or anything
- Doesn't sound dull. Loud is good. Bright is good.
- Electronics or not, doesn't matter.

I've looked so far at:
- Martin DX1
- Martin D16
- Seagull S6 Mahogany

I think that I'm a fan of the general vibe of Martin D - type guitars, and derivatives of that design. Seagull (and other Godin brands) seem like a good value for price, since they're Canadian made, so you tend to get solid woods for much cheaper this way. Also Seagull stuff usually plays pretty well.

Lets say budget is max $1500. Any recommendations for other things I should try? In the end though, I imagine it'll be down to whatever speaks to me when I pick it up.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

acoustics are very much a try before you buy situation ime, moreso than electrics. Big price points don't necessarily mean that the guitars are going to sound better to you. I've played ibanez/seagulls/godins that more than hold their own against taylors and martins, with some sounding way better. I can't really recommend an individual model besides a rainsong (if you get the chance to play one) dreadnought. Those are amazing and wiped the floor with comparably priced martins/taylors (and a surprising number of even more expensive taylors).


----------



## TedEH

I think that's a lot of why I've been leaning towards the Seagulls. Even their cheaper models look, play, and sound really nice. I noodled with the Mahogany S6 and kept coming back to it. They had an S6 original right next to it, but I liked the mahogany more. 

I feel like these also tend to be hit-or-miss within the same models. And, unfortunately, in-store guitars tend to have crummy old strings that kill the experience. So I think I need to find a store that maintains their stuff and just have at em. 

I'm still all ears for suggestions on things to try.


----------



## tedtan

A used Martin D-18 made in the last few years (they were redesigned in 2012) will tick all of your boxes and be a lifetime guitar, but it will be at the upper end of your stated budget. The Seagulls are nice, but if you opt to go that route, you'll probably end up upgrading over time, especially if volume is a concern.

But if you're willing to spend the money, I say bite the bullet and buy once - that way you only cry once.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I'm looking at upgrading my low-budget Taylor 110 series with something more substantial. Recently I've begun comparing specs, construction, woods, etc... and I keep coming back to the PRS SE Angelus series. I'm also a fan of the Fishman GT1 electronics, ebony board, mahogany neck, and bone nut/ saddle. IMO they sound fantastic and for under $1k I think they're worth looking at. Good luck on your search.


----------



## TedEH

It's super tempting to expand the budget a bit and go for something super nice. 
OR
Go way overboard and get something built.


----------



## JohnIce

I'm super with you in being tired of dull sounding acoustics without enough brightness. I really think you should consider Taylor, then. I own two 114 series (a 6 and a 12) and I can't recommend them enough. I used to have a Martin Dreadnought, can't remember the model but it was in the $1000 range. I've had a few other brands in that range as well. The Taylors definitely play more like electrics, that's kind of what they're known for, but the main thing I like about them is that they sound "mixed" if that makes any sense. They have a naturally scooped midrange unlike the Martins (and most acoustics really) which I find to be middier and "harder" sounding and needing an EQ to get a smooth strumming sound out of. Being that the Taylors don't have such a powerful midrange, you hear more of the brightness/detail of the strings which makes them less picky about mic choice, so they record very well in my opinion. You can throw pretty much any mic anywhere on it and it'll sound ok, never experienced that with other acoustics.


----------



## TedEH

Part of me wants to go a slightly less traditional route, and get something that isn't quite the same off-the-shelf stuff you see everywhere.

These look cool:
https://www.riversongguitars.com/

I've also tried a couple of guitars by this guy before, and have always wanted one since:
http://dkguitars.com/
(The site's a bit broken right now, I think?)

Edit: The site is kinda wonky for me, but his facebook has lots of cool photos:
https://www.facebook.com/DKGuitarsCanada/


----------



## gnoll

I would try as many guitars as possible and try to figure out what you like in an acoustic guitar before dropping a bigger amount of money on one. Do you like more of the Martin, Taylor or Gibson sound, or something else? Do you like mahogany or rosewood or something else for back/sides? Do you like a top wood other than spruce? What type of bracing pattern do you like? Do you like the bracing forward or rear-shifted? Scalloped? There are lots of things that influence the sound of an acoustic guitar. Again, best is of course to try as much as possible, but there's also a lot of good demos on youtube comparing different models and guitars with different construction specs.

I dropped about your budget (slightly less) on a good acoustic a bunch of years ago and ended up with a guitar I never bonded with. Over the years the fact that I never really liked that guitar triggered me to do more research and figure out what I actually like. Then I bought another guitar and got it right. I wish I'd done the proper research from the start, though.


----------



## TedEH

I'm certainly not rushing into anything. Trying all the things is definitely the plan. Maybe I won't buy anything at all.


----------



## gnoll

Have you checked out Larrivée? They're also Canadian, although I think they moved production to California recently... Anyway they're known for using very good wood and having quite a balanced sound.

If you like the sound of Martin Dreadnoughts maybe it would be worth it to check out the similar Chinese made guitars like Blueridge and Eastman. That way you can get similar specs to the higher end Martins but for a lower price. The cheaper Martin Dreads have different specs to the dovetail guitars and don't sound the same. Not necessarily worse, but if you like guitars like the D-18, D-28 etc. but don't wanna spend that money then I would probably look into another brand rather than getting a cheaper Martin.


----------



## TedEH

Because of how much I seem to lean towards the Martin D style stuff, I had looked at their X series stuff - the ones with the laminate sides and backs - and they're not terrible. Seemed a bit hit or miss though in terms of sound. One I picked up I think sounded convincingly good, and another I grabbed another time was disappointing. I can't tell if it was a question of told/bad strings, stuff in the store just not being maintained, etc. Larrivee is another brand I've been aware of, but I haven't tried one yet. Will check that out next time I'm at a shop.


----------



## Drew

JohnIce said:


> I'm super with you in being tired of dull sounding acoustics without enough brightness. I really think you should consider Taylor, then. I own two 114 series (a 6 and a 12) and I can't recommend them enough. I used to have a Martin Dreadnought, can't remember the model but it was in the $1000 range. I've had a few other brands in that range as well. The Taylors definitely play more like electrics, that's kind of what they're known for, but the main thing I like about them is that they sound "mixed" if that makes any sense. They have a naturally scooped midrange unlike the Martins (and most acoustics really) which I find to be middier and "harder" sounding and needing an EQ to get a smooth strumming sound out of. Being that the Taylors don't have such a powerful midrange, you hear more of the brightness/detail of the strings which makes them less picky about mic choice, so they record very well in my opinion. You can throw pretty much any mic anywhere on it and it'll sound ok, never experienced that with other acoustics.


As a Martin owner, I'll second this.

Whether or not it's the right fit for you is a matter of just going out and playing a whole bunch of guitars and deciding what works for you. And, in my particular case, it wasn't - I bought my acoustic (a Martin MC16GTE) used in my old local shop which was otherwise a Taylor dealer, with my first post-college paycheck, and after playing a whole bunch of nice Taylors picked this one up, and after a few minutes a guitar that initially sounded "restrained" and kind of weak in the high end began to sound balanced and even. I initially left the store without it, made it as far as the parking lot, before I doubled back and bought the thing. 

But... If you want a loud, bright, punchy guitar, a Martin is the first place I'd look. They do sound very modern, almost to the point of being a little "hyped" sounding, which may or may not be a good thing - for what you're saying, I suspect you'll like it. I can make my Martin sound like that, but it takes some EQing, clearing out the midrange and adding some high end shimmer.

And a really nice acoustic is worth spending money on. Mine actually tried to commit suicide a few years ago when the strap slipped off and it caught the corner of my dining table, splitting the side - my local luthier was able to repair it and if anything it sounds better than it used to (there was also an odd resonance in one of the braces he addressed), but I spent the time it was in the shop going out and playing acoustics and looking for a "nicer" one to buy (mine's sort of a midrange Martin, the same basic construction of a D-series but without any of the nicer cosmetic touches and a synthetic bridge and fretboard), and I kept thinking whenever I picked something up that it was nice, but I just wanted my own guitar back. Maybe one of these days I'll find something that really floors me, but the one I have is now a 20-year-old Martin that was a splurge at the time, but it plays comfortably, I've made a LOT of music with it, and I think if I were to find something that would so clearly eclipse it that I'd want to upgrade, it would involve spending a LOT of money on something, potentially something used with some age on it.

That said - as far as more "budget" brands I've played that I've liked the sound of, Seagull is usually very good, some of the better Alvarez guitars I've played are way nicer than their price would suggest, and I've played a couple affordable Breedloves that were quite nice, too.


----------



## TedEH

Drew said:


> I can make my Martin sound like that, but it takes some EQing, clearing out the midrange and adding some high end shimmer.


I'd honestly be more concerned with in-the-room sound than recorded sound. Something I could noodle with at home, play for small groups of people, use for shows, etc. I've been liking the idea of trying to book some small acoustic shows for those in-between times when the bands aren't doing much - but it's a secondary concern to just having an instrument that I can sort of 'gel' with in any situation.


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> I'd honestly be more concerned with in-the-room sound than recorded sound. Something I could noodle with at home, play for small groups of people, use for shows, etc. I've been liking the idea of trying to book some small acoustic shows for those in-between times when the bands aren't doing much - but it's a secondary concern to just having an instrument that I can sort of 'gel' with in any situation.


Yeah, that's why I think something in the Taylor sort of family might do it for you. Right out of the box, I suspect you'll be very happy with how it sounds when you just pick it up and strum. And, not that I'm not, but it's just a very different sounding guitar... 

Also, maybe a bit of a longshot, but if you want something very "contemporary" sounding and looking, a Rainsong might interest you. A college buddy of mine owned one - I recall it being a seriously clear guitar, bright high end and piano-esq lows. And they're certainly visually striking...


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> If you want a loud, bright, punchy guitar, a Martin is the first place I'd look.



Specifically the re-voiced D18. It is loud, bright, punchy and has a very comfortable (Taylor inspired) neck carve, so it will play as well as a Taylor, and can be found in your stated price range (used, but very good condition). It's definitely worth checking out before making a final decision. Maybe a 0000/Jumbo body style, too.




Drew said:


> the one I have is now a 20-year-old Martin that was a splurge at the time, but it plays comfortably, I've made a LOT of music with it, and I think if I were to find something that would so clearly eclipse it that I'd want to upgrade, it would involve spending a LOT of money on something, potentially something used with some age on it.



I mainly played acoustic guitar from 2012 through 2015, though I still played electric during that time as well, and made it a mission to find the best acoustic guitar for me I could; one that fit like a glove, so to speak. Not that I was unhappy with my Taylor 814ce that I was playing at the time, I just wanted to see what else was available. And having family spread out throughout the US, I used trips to visit family as an excuse to check out some of the better guitar shops in each city I traveled to (Austin Vintage, Hill Country, et al. in Austin; Gruhn's, Carter Vintage, Cotton, Artisan, et al. in Nashville; Dusty Strings, The Guitar Store, Emerald City, et al. in Seattle; and so on).

In that time I was fortunate enough to get to play everything from typical $2K Martin/Taylor/Gibson/et al. guitars to $5-10K boutique builder guitars by Collings/Santa Cruz/Huss and Dalton/Goodall/Bourgeois/et al. on to $20K hand made Olson/Ryan/Petros/et al. custom guitars, to prewar Martin and Gibson guitars into the $80-100K price range. All told, I probably played several hundred guitars in period (in addition to the couple hundred I had played previously).

And out of all of those guitars, only three grabbed my attention and screamed BUY ME! One was a Goodall RGCC ($5,500), one was a Huss and Dalton DS with "special" wood ($6,500) and one was a banner era Gibson J45 (a 1944 model with mahogany top; $9,000). Those custom built guitars were great, too, as were the prewar guitars. But only these three jumped out at me. And while I would love to have brought them home, I couldn't justify buying them, so I left the store empty handed each time. But that Goodall haunted me, so over the next month or so, I called the shop several times to negotiate the price and finally got it down to a price that was, while still more than I wanted to spend, at least justifiable. I've had that Goodall for three and a half years now, and it is still the best fit for me that I have found, so I don't regret splurging on it.

Long story summed up, Martin/Taylor/Gibson/Guild/Larrivee/at al. make great guitars. To get a better guitar, you gut instinct that you will have to shell out a chunk of change is spot on.

As an aside, I also played a lot of vintage Gibson and Fender electrics from the 50's and 60's during that time and can say from my experience that most I've played were not great instruments. Sure, there are a few vintage guitars that are, whether due to manufacturing tolerances, component values drifting over the years, or something else, special instruments. But most of those are already in the hands of pros, producers, studios, etc. The typical vintage guitar is well worn (to the point of being worn out) and nothing special, either. Give me a modern guitar instead.


----------



## Drew

Dammit, that was a typo, lol. A _TAYLOR _is the first place I'd look.  I haven't played the new D-18 though, so I'll try to track one down some time.


----------



## TedEH

Drew said:


> a Rainsong might interest you


Coooool, will take a look into those.

On the topic of vintage guitars - I suppose the "vintage" sound is what I've sort of gotten used to. The two acoustics I've owned are both above the 30 year old mark at this point, and the last 12 string I really enjoyed playing was around the same age. There's something that age does to an acoustic that I like (depending on the guitar of course). Unfortunately, while gaining something in character, they certainly lose certain elements of playability.


----------



## LordCashew

I would also suggest a Taylor. If you go used, you could probably get some of that broken-in character you like, and in a higher-end series than you could afford new. Plus Taylors are built for adjustment with their removable necks etc, so that like-new playability is probably still attainable. The trouble would be finding one you can try before buying...

Not everyone is a fan of their expression system electronics, though you don't seem to be too picky on that front. At least they're unobtrusive...


----------



## gnoll

When you say bright my instinct is also to say Taylor or something along those lines, but you also mention vintage and Martin Dreads, which feels a bit like going in the opposite direction. Not that Martins can't be bright, but those two have kind of different approaches to making guitars. I don't know that much about Taylors though, I just played the ones I came across and concluded they weren't really my thing.

The new D-18 is my current guitar actually. I would say it's loud but not necessarily bright exactly. The sound is pretty midrangey from the mahogany, and the forward-shifted scalloped bracing gives it a lot of power and projection. Strum a loud chord on it and you can really feel it. It really growls in a way I haven't heard another acoustic do. That's what I like about it.


----------



## TedEH

The more I think about it, the more I think that "bright" is maybe the wrong word for what I'm looking for. It's not brightness per-se, but maybe a certain quality of the high end that just isn't dull. I find a lot of acoustics just sound boring or plain, and I think it comes from the high end lacking any character.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> Dammit, that was a typo, lol. A _TAYLOR _is the first place I'd look.  I haven't played the new D-18 though, so I'll try to track one down some time.



I figured that was the case , but wanted to take the opportunity to reiterate the new D18 recommendation, as I think it will meet TedEH's criteria about Martin Dreds, vintage-ish, bright without being thin (maybe I'm reading a bit into his descriptions with that, though). It's definitely not bright to the point of being thin sounding, nor is it dull or muddy, not is it very mid focused (like a Gibson J45).

I know these videos are a far from perfect example of what the guitar will sound like in person, but this is a decent comparison and I think the extra low end and mids of the Martin would work better in most jams or solo performances whereas the Taylor would likely fit in a denser mix with less EQing.


----------



## TedEH

I looked up some videos about those Rainsong guitars and they sound interesting from what I can tell via videos + headphones. Suuuuuuper kinda squeaky in the high end though, to my ears. That's one I'd want to try in person.

From that comparison, I think I still prefer the D-18. The more videos/comparisons I watch, the more I keep leaning towards Martin. I guess I just like those.


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> The more I think about it, the more I think that "bright" is maybe the wrong word for what I'm looking for. It's not brightness per-se, but maybe a certain quality of the high end that just isn't dull. I find a lot of acoustics just sound boring or plain, and I think it comes from the high end lacking any character.


So, maybe we should go about this the other way. What's your favorite recorded acoustic tone, on a record?


----------



## TedEH

Maaaan.... that's tough to figure out, hah.

Some examples of recorded acoustic sounds I like:
- Opeth, The Throat of Winter
- Oh Hellos, Like the Dawn
- Coheed, Always & Never

Some examples of recorded acoustic sounds I don't like, or not as much:
- City and Colour, Sometimes - Some songs are alright, but some are a little too boxy/nasal/middy
- Kotipelto & Liimatainen Blackoustic - This is an example of what I mean about how it's lacking high end character, but the rest is good
- In Flames Acoustic Medley from The Jester Race - Suuuuper dull sounding. Completely lacks that high end character

Seems like the sounds I like the least are the kind of boxy forward sounding guitars. Gatta have some scoop to it.


----------



## gnoll

Generally rosewood guitars tend to be a bit more scooped sounding compared to something like mahogany.


----------



## shadscbr

My GAS is very strong for one of these with a bevel 

http://www.avianguitars.com/

Depending on your playing position and the thickness of the guitar, a bevel might be worth searching out. Over a decade ago I had a custom Kronbauer (Canada) acoustic built with a bevel and sound port. Back then, these options were not available on production guitars, so I took a chance. I have to say, I love both of these features way more than I expected, and would never order a custom without them. If you decide to go custom, really make sure you know what you want. The bevel keeps my forearm from getting numb, and I feel like the sound port lets me really hear all of the frequencies, harmonic content, and overall tone generated by the instrument. Price wise, acoustics with bevels are now avail from the $500 Taylor Academy on up, by a number of manufacturers. Best of luck with your search!


----------



## TedEH

^ Ooooh those are cool looking. I've been liking the idea of something not-very-traditional looking. These look kinda small though, which strikes me as odd, especially for the baritone model.

I've got some free time tomorrow, I think I might hit up one of the shops nearby that has some high-end-esque (aka not entry level) acoustics I can noodle with for a bit.


----------



## TedEH

Had a free day today so I made a trip out to a shop nearby - it sort of confirmed some stuff I was already thinking, but also made me wonder at the same time...

They had a D-28 but nothing cheaper than that. I liked it. Did what a guitar should do. Neck shape was comfortable. Best I can describe it is that it felt like an expensive version of what I've already got, which is both good and bad. Strangely, the action on the one I tried was higher than I expected, but there was lots of bridge to be adjusted. With a setup, I imagine it would be really great.

I tried a handful of Taylors. Super playable necks. They struck me as being very bright compared to everything else, which matches what I was expecting. Sometimes a bit too bright though. Its like I couldn't turn the brightness off. With the Martin, I could pick in a way to bring out some brightness, or intentionally keep a warmer sort of subdued attack, but the Taylor was just always very bright. One of them (I forget what model, but it was a much larger, rounder body- 816 maybe?) sounded huge, but the high end was almost annoyingly bright. It was like having a 12 string, it was so jangly.

In particular I grabbed a couple of 110 models and they sound good. Necks feel nice like the others. But- I feel like the details are just not there with these ones. The frets are playable but sort of.... not nice looking? The attention went to playability, which is great, but it feels like corners were cut on finish on these. If you close your eyes, they're great, but visually there's some rough edges.

I picked up a Gibson that was in the $2k+ range (CAD though, so that's what $500? ). I immediately put it back down. It felt like a toy. Definitely not in the same league as the others.

They had some Seagulls but not any of the models I've been previously looking at. I wasn't very impressed with these ones, but I can't tell if it's just dead strings, or the shop not seeming to care to maintain the non-high-end stuff. Maybe I just don't like these models. Maybe I got spoiled by the more expensive stuff and could just immediately feel the downgrade. But I remember picking up an S6 in a different store and really liking it. So.... More research needed in this area.

Big downside to the whole thing is that everything I liked was ridiculously expensive. Anything under $1k felt like I'd be compromising something compared to what I already have, despite my starting point not being anything special. More research in the future I guess. Made for a nice day anyway.


----------



## Hollowway

Check out Andrew White guitars. I have one, and they’re really nice. Cool body shapes, and a variety of solid/laminate options at different price points.


----------



## TedEH

Cooool. Will do.

I definitely want to track down a D-15m to try out as well. They're sort of checking a lot of the boxes at the moment, but I haven't found one in person yet.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It's worth noting that there are tons of ways to modify the tonality of an acoustic, most are pretty cheap too. 

From stuff like what strings you use (especially the construction and materials), to different bridge pins, to nut and saddle. 

What you want to really examine when trying them out is volume, projection and how bright they are. The more of all three the more you'll be able to shape the actual sound. It's far easier to darken and hush a loud, bright acoustic than it is to liven up something dark and quiet.


----------



## TedEH

That all makes a lot of sense.

Had another free-ish day, so I ended up in a different shop today -> this time a used place. They had two things that caught my interest:

One was a Larivee D-03R - It was actually super nice to play. A tad bit on the bright side of things, but sounded really nice. The only thing I think I didn't get along with too much was that the neck shape was a little rounder/chunkier than I'd like, but that's being nitpicky. 

The second thing was a Sigma DM-15+, which is basically a cheaper version of that D-15M I'd like to find. Realistically, picking this one up I think confirms that the GAS for the legit D-15M is real. It has the sound, the neck shape, the all-mahogany thing looks really nice to me, etc. Realistically, the Sigma played nicely too, and for the tiny fraction of the price of a Martin, it's almost hard to justify the more expensive one. 

Guitar research weekends are good weekends.


----------



## Lemonbaby

I'd get killed for asking this on an acoustic forum, but I just wanted to make sure: did the Taylors sound too bright when played with fingers? I sometimes see guys in guitar stores grab a high-end acoustic and pull out a pick to play it...


----------



## TedEH

Why would it be weird to use a pick on any particular guitar?

I wouldn't say the Taylors I tried were "too" bright, regardless of how they were played, so much as it didn't suit the particular sound I tend to like. Honestly, if I already had a whole bunch of acoustics, I'd probably want one of those just for the variety. They played well, and the brightness really does sound good. It's just not "my thing" currently.


----------



## tedtan

My description of the Taylor sound is that when played with a pick, they tend to sound like they were designed to fit into a band context. As if a tracking/mixing engineer has already cut out some low end and mids so that they won't fight for space with the other acoustic guitar, the electric guitar, the keys, the backing vocals, etc., and when played with fingers, tend to sound like a "modern" acoustic guitar - not too bright, not too bassy with good separation.


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> I tried a handful of Taylors. Super playable necks. They struck me as being very bright compared to everything else, which matches what I was expecting. Sometimes a bit too bright though. Its like I couldn't turn the brightness off. With the Martin, I could pick in a way to bring out some brightness, or intentionally keep a warmer sort of subdued attack, but the Taylor was just always very bright. One of them (I forget what model, but it was a much larger, rounder body- 816 maybe?) sounded huge, but the high end was almost annoyingly bright. It was like having a 12 string, it was so jangly.


This is pretty much what drew me to a Martin over a Taylor - Taylors have, to me, a very hyped, modern high end, while Martins tend to sound more even and balanced. Neither is _bad_, and I'm actually surprised to hear you preferring the Martin, too, based on your previous comments, but... It's subjective, so who knows.

I don't know any of those songs, by the way, but I'll hit Youtube. For me, the acoustic guitar tone I chase is Days of the New, which I think IS a Taylor, not a Martin, but with phosphor bronze strings. I'm in the right ballpark, though, recorded, which I'm pumped for.



TedEH said:


> Big downside to the whole thing is that everything I liked was ridiculously expensive. Anything under $1k felt like I'd be compromising something compared to what I already have, despite my starting point not being anything special. More research in the future I guess. Made for a nice day anyway.


This is kind of the nature of an acoustic guitar - the whole "hollow body made from thin strips of carefully-bent wood, carefully reinforced with internal bracing" thing does tend to make them a bit more expensive to make than your typical CNC-machined solidbody. You get what you pay for, for the most part. 



Lemonbaby said:


> I'd get killed for asking this on an acoustic forum, but I just wanted to make sure: did the Taylors sound too bright when played with fingers? I sometimes see guys in guitar stores grab a high-end acoustic and pull out a pick to play it...


Why is _that_ an issue? Plenty of acoustic guitarists are flatpickers, not fingerstyle players.


----------



## nedheftyfunk

I've been on a similar hunt. I have gotten distracted away from Taylor, which was where I started, by Yamaha's A3 & A5 series guitars. I don't know if they've been on your radar, but both have solid back and sides (either mahogany or rosewood for an extra 100 or so), torrefied tops, apparently decent electronics etc., but at a much lower price point than the equivalent Taylor. The two series have similar, if not quite identical, specs, but the former is built in Yamaha's factory in China and the latter in their Japanese custom shop:

https://europe.yamaha.com/en/produc...guitars_basses/ac_guitars/a_series/index.html

The difficulty, at least for me, is finding one to play before buying, and deciding whether the 50% mark-up for A5 over the A3 is worth it. 

Bit off topic, but here's an old and newer vid tour of Yamaha's factory in China:


----------



## TedEH

There's a part of me that's really been debating the price vs value thing. After running into that Sigma the other day, it's incredibly close the instrument that I've been GASing for, it's just not "the real deal". But it's the same design, the same materials..... but it's more than $1k less. It was almost cheap enough to be in impulse buy territory.

Part of me really wants the real deal, but there's always that voice that says "you're just paying for the name on the headstock so you can feel good about it". We all know at this point that 5x the price doesn't mean 5x the quality or sound or playability. But I also don't want to buy something that will leaving me still wanting to upgrade again in a year.


----------



## budda

Easy: buy both.


----------



## TedEH

Don't tempt me maaaaan.


----------



## tedtan

TedEH said:


> There's a part of me that's really been debating the price vs value thing. After running into that Sigma the other day, it's incredibly close the instrument that I've been GASing for, it's just not "the real deal". But it's the same design, the same materials..... but it's more than $1k less. It was almost cheap enough to be in impulse buy territory.
> 
> Part of me really wants the real deal, but there's always that voice that says "you're just paying for the name on the headstock so you can feel good about it". We all know at this point that 5x the price doesn't mean 5x the quality or sound or playability. But I also don't want to buy something that will leaving me still wanting to upgrade again in a year.



Well, you're already saying that "it's just not 'the real deal'", so I'd say that this matters to you, even if it is just the name. For what it's worth, those Sigmas are good guitars, but they are not as responsive or loud as a standard series Martin.




budda said:


> Easy: buy both.



Yep - this is always the correct answer.


----------



## TedEH

I walked into a L&M this weekend and they had a D-15M on the wall, so I couldn't not play it. Other guitars were heavier, lighter, brighter, etc., but I kept grabbing other guitars, noodling for a minute, then putting them back down and picking the 15 back up. Something about the way the body resonates on these is really pleasing. Sort of like most of the other instruments are made to project forward and be loud and cutting - but the 15 didn't react the same way. I think it might be the mahogany itself, since that's the one thing that was entirely unique to this instrument compared to the other ones.

The best way I can describe it: One thing I was doing as a sort of "test" to see how the guitars reacted - I did a sort of pick scrape ending with a big ol' mute/chug on the low E. I know that's more a metal thing, and not something most people do on acoustics, but it's the kind of nonsense I might do with an acoustic anyway.  Some guitars reacted to the mute by just having a choppy percussive sound that mostly stopped there. Others would sort of resonate a bit with it, in kind of a boxy way, then die off pretty quick. The mahogany body seemed to be the only one that really liked the mute sound - the whole body reacted to it, so you could sort of feel it, and it didn't just chop and die off right away. The best analogy I can think of is when you chug away through a Recto - it has that low end that sort of blooms out from under the initial attack and you can feel it happening, where a really dry amp just immediately dies off after the initial dig.

So.... the mahogany guitar is comparable to a loose dirty amp compared to a quick and dry amp. 

The only thing that bugs me about it is that the factory action is a bit on the high end. It seems to be a pattern with all Martins -> they all have more height at the bridge than I expected. Maybe this is an intentional way to give a lot of room for personal setups? Is it supposed to be part of the buying process that you would get a setup done to drop this down to where you want it? Maybe someone who has bought more acoustics than I can explain if this is how it's supposed to work. It's not so high that I couldn't get along with it, but it seems like it's higher than most would want it to be.

I've noticed that I've quite enjoyed any Larrivee I picked up as well. So far I'm really leaning towards saving up some money and grabbing a 15M in a couple o months. Current research leaves the list at:

D-15M (for the mojo) > Larrivee D-03 (Has some dreadnought mojo, but also is pretty bright) > Taylor (pretty much any one, they're all pretty good) > Any other Martin > Everything else.

If I had a ton of money to throw away, I'd grab the Martin, but ALSO a Taylor 814 -> It's way out of my price range, and too far from "my sound" to be my main acoustic, but these were also really enjoyable to play, for entirely different reasons than the others. They're just so big and active and present, etc. They're also very expensive.


----------



## tedtan

TedEH said:


> The only thing that bugs me about it is that the factory action is a bit on the high end. It seems to be a pattern with all Martins -> they all have more height at the bridge than I expected. Maybe this is an intentional way to give a lot of room for personal setups? Is it supposed to be part of the buying process that you would get a setup done to drop this down to where you want it? Maybe someone who has bought more acoustics than I can explain if this is how it's supposed to work. It's not so high that I couldn't get along with it, but it seems like it's higher than most would want it to be.



This is intentional. Martin leaves the action a bit high so that the shop selling the guitar can set it up to the buyer's preferences because people look for different things in action (finger style players typically like low action, bluegrass players have to have higher action because they beat the hell out of the guitar trying to be heard alongside the banjo and violin/fiddle, etc.). Note that Martin expects that the shop will set the guitar up free of charge; the cost f the setup is included in the price of the guitar.




TedEH said:


> So far I'm really leaning towards saving up some money and grabbing a 15M in a couple o months.



Before you buy, try to get your hands on a Guild D20. It is also an all mahogany dred at the same price point as the D15M, but it is a little warmer than the Martin (more lows, less highs). Between the two, you should have a preference for one over the other.


----------



## TedEH

Cooool. My plan was to definitely try to negotiate the setup into the price of the guitar if it wasn't already included. At that price, I'd be pretty disappointed if they can't do a setup.

If I can find a D20, I'll try that for sure. Gut reaction is that I'd probably still like the Martin better, just in the sense that I'd be worried about it getting tooo dark.


----------



## tedtan

Yeah, that's a possibility.


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> The mahogany body seemed to be the only one that really liked the mute sound - the whole body reacted to it, so you could sort of feel it, and it didn't just chop and die off right away. The best analogy I can think of is when you chug away through a Recto - it has that low end that sort of blooms out from under the initial attack and you can feel it happening, where a really dry amp just immediately dies off after the initial dig.
> 
> So.... the mahogany guitar is comparable to a loose dirty amp compared to a quick and dry amp.


As the owner of a MC-16 with a mahogany back and sides, yeah, I can confirm there's something warm and "big" about the way notes bloom.


----------



## gnoll

Have you tried a D-18 or something that's similar in construction to one?

I ask because of what you write about the chugging on the mahogany guitar. I love my D-18 for playing metal stuff with a thinner tortex pick because of how the palm mutes behave. It does feel a bit like playing a high gain tube amp.

However... I also have a D-15M actually, and it doesn't do the palm mutes like the D-18 does. (Nor did the D-28's/35's I've tried, but then they're rosewood!) If you like the D-15M maybe you would like the D-18 even more. I know that the D-18 is almost twice the price of the D-15M but (I mentioned this earlier in the thread) there are Chinese made guitars similar in construction to a D-18 that many people seem to like (Eastman and Blueridge are the brands that come to my mind but maybe there are others too). I haven't played these but in hindsight I think for me buying one of those would probably have been a better a better idea than getting the D-15M. Of course, you might very well prefer the 15 when all is said and done, but if you can get your hands on a mahogany/spruce guitar with probably forward shifted scalloped X bracing, maybe it'd be worth giving it a try.


----------



## TedEH

I can't remember if I found an 18 yet, but I'm not rushing into anything, so I'd not hesitate to try one if I find one. I definitely found some of the $3k+ CAD models (mostly a couple of variations of D-21 I think), and they were certainly good guitars, but outside of what I think I'm willing to spend, and didn't have that dark thing that Mahogany does.

I'm hesitant to buy something that's just a cheaper version of a Martin design (Blueridge, Sigma, etc) since that's more or less what I have already, and I think it would leave me wanting more again. A few posts up, I mentioned that I had tried a Sigma that was pretty much the exact same design as the 15M - it very well might be exactly the same design from what I understand of the history of Sigma, just with a slightly cheaper construction, and I think that's the only thing I'd consider so far in terms of knock-off/cheaper variants now that I've got an idea of what I'm aiming for.

But you never know, maybe my circumstances will change, or I'll just run into something that speaks to me and I'll grab it. Wouldn't be the first time I picked up a guitar on feel alone.


----------



## gnoll

Hm, that Sigma is a pretty cheap guitar that doesn't even have solid back and sides. I wouldn't generalize based on that. Not all guitars made in the Far East are of the same quality. But if it's more about them not being the real thing, then yeah, I mean, that's a valid point and something I can definately relate to.

But maybe you should avoid trying the D-18 then.


----------



## tedtan

TedEH said:


> A few posts up, I mentioned that I had tried a Sigma that was pretty much the exact same design as the 15M - it very well might be exactly the same design from what I understand of the history of Sigma, just with a slightly cheaper construction, and I think that's the only thing I'd consider so far in terms of knock-off/cheaper variants now that I've got an idea of what I'm aiming for.



Back in the 80's and early 90's, Martin owned Sigma and had them made in Japan as a lower cost option than their US made instruments and these are pretty good guitars. It looks like they may be under a different ownership now (AMI) and the quality is probably not the same, so I would only recommend the older ones unless you can try it first hand and approve of the particular instrument.


----------



## TedEH

The Sigma I tried was a used one - I have no idea how old it was. If I had to guess, it was all solid though.


----------



## tedtan

Probably an older one, then.


----------



## gnoll

I think the older Sigmas had laminate back/sides too.

And Martin D-15 wasn't introduced until 1997, so it's probably not from before that.


----------



## TedEH

An update for anyone who would be interested: After months of noodling with guitars in stores and just not finding anything else that gets me quite as excited to pick up, I ordered the D-15M. I've been going back to the shop to try things (and for other non-acoustic reasons) and kept coming back to the Streetmaster model they had on the shelf, which is in theory the same but with some relic'ing. Since Martin apparently doesn't ship anything here in the winter because of the humidity difference, they're shipping me one that they had in stock in Toronto. Nooooow I just wait...


----------



## tedtan

Let us know your thoughts once you have it in hand.


----------



## Given To Fly

TedEH said:


> The best analogy I can think of is when you chug away through a Recto - it has that low end that sort of blooms out from under the initial attack and you can feel it happening, where a really dry amp just immediately dies off after the initial dig.
> 
> So.... the mahogany guitar is comparable to a loose dirty amp compared to a quick and dry amp.
> 
> 
> Drew said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the owner of a MC-16 with a mahogany back and sides, yeah, I can confirm there's something warm and "big" about the way notes bloom.
Click to expand...


When you palm mute the low E on an acoustic guitar, you are cutting out most the harmonics which leaves you with more of the fundamental pitch. That is the low end. The “bloom” occurs when you lift your palm off the string. This allows the harmonics that we’re cut to begin to resonate and gradually build up, hence the “bloom” description. 

I encourage you to take this one step further. At the 6th fret, fret a Perfect 4th on the low A and E strings. With your right hand, palm the bridge, pluck the 2 strings using a quick downstroke until you find the “sweet spot.” You will know the sweet spot when you find it. The pitch produced is called a “resultant tone” and in this instance should be an Eb slightly below 40Hz (E). It should be in the high 30’s. (37, 38, 39) Slowly, remove your palm and the harmonics will start “blooming.” It takes experimentation. It is also difficult to explain over the internet. Pipe Organs use resultant tones to compensate for the lack 64’ and 32’ pipes but the effect is so refined you would not be able to hear the difference. The guitar is less refined in this regard.

On my 7 string classical, I do what I just described but on the low E and B strings. My tuner registers a resultant tone of Bb at 29.7Hz. If you want to know more, Google or Wiki resultant tones, sum/difference tones, and pipe organs.


----------



## TedEH

Given To Fly said:


> When you palm mute the low E on an acoustic guitar, you are cutting out most the harmonics which leaves you with more of the fundamental pitch. That is the low end. The “bloom” occurs when you lift your palm off the string. This allows the harmonics that we’re cut to begin to resonate and gradually build up, hence the “bloom” description.


I'm sure that's a thing, but it's not quite what I was referring to when I posted that comment.

What I meant to say by bloom when muting was more that the body of the instrument seemed willing to resonate along with the lower leftover content from a mute once the harmonics had been killed off - as opposed to most guitars that either kill off that low end leaving you with just a stiff "chunk" and some pick noise, or projecting it forward and away from the player who doesn't otherwise "feel" the low end of the mute anymore.

Pick up a Taylor and mute on it and you get.... a quick "k'junk" and that's it. Done. Mute on a Martin and you get more "k'JUuuu...." that sustains for a bit, but it's still mostly projected forward. This particular one I'm looking at (and hopefully the one I ordered does the same thing and it wasn't a fluke) goes a step farther and the whole body resonates with the note. It could be the material it's made from, or the bracing, or something about the finish, but the whole body resonates in a way that most acoustics don't.


----------

