Right..Recommend a Great Acoustic

fitz

Firstly, you can't settle an argument unless you play the same piece on a €2k guitar using the same recording conditions for comparison.

As for being able to hear the difference, I've previously identified makes of guitars I'm familiar with from recordings. It's not difficult, once you're familiar with a particular guitars tonal characteristics.

I had a listen to the clip, and tbh, I'd have said it's probably either a yamaha or an aria, though I may be completely wrong. Either way, there's very little depth to the tone, very little sustain, pretty flat dynamic, regardless of the variations in playing, and it's a fairly narrowly voice guitar too.

It sounds fine, but it is what it is.
If you're aiming for that tone, who am I to tell you otherwise.
If that's what you like, that's fine.
But to recommend that to someone else who is clearly looking to get a high quality sound for the purposes of recording, and to belittle the difference a pro quality instrument can make?

:rolleyes:

nickcave

I'll repeat my message in case it has somehow become twisted:

He should stick to the guitars that HE has.

Why? Read my first post.

edit: This article outlines my point exactly. I'm not doing this as an argument for or against audiophilia:

http://www.studioreviews.com/killingmusic.htm

I know the OP isn't into getting a home studio, but the point is valid.

frobisher

nickcave wrote:

Just to see can we pin this down I'll direct you to a recording I made last year (I like settling arguments with this:D )

http://artists.cpu.ie//download.php?band_id=654&song_id=2456&mode=song_hifi

That's a €200 guitar with about another €200 of recording equipment. The playing isn't great, but the sound is excellent, which is the point here.



Yeah, Elliott Smith had one of those. He used it on his indie albums AND it also saw use on his major label albums. I've never played one though.

OP, sorry if this is a little off point, but we'll soon get to the bottom of your woes...

I may personally play a guitar worth a small fortune but whenever I have been impressed with a cheap acoustic it has pretty much always been a Yamaha.
For whatever it's worth I like the sound of your clip. It's not gorgeous but it's nice. Although it has too much room on it for what I think a recording of that type needs. The tone is thin, far from spectacular but it is sweet. It actually reminds me of some Gibsons I've played but has too much honky tonk in the low mid and not enough soft clarity, presuming that's not in the recording I'd say it's a Yamaha. Although I am prepared to fall flat on my face about this!!
I reckon this is my nerdiest ever post!:D

david

I'd say its an old Yamaha too... I'd bet my life on it lol

nickcave

It's a Crafter.

Eoin Madsen

nickcave wrote:

I'll repeat my message in case it has somehow become twisted:
He should stick to the guitars that HE has.
Why? Read my first post.
edit: This article outlines my point exactly. I'm not doing this as an argument for or against audiophilia:
http://www.studioreviews.com/killingmusic.htm
I know the OP isn't into getting a home studio, but the point is valid.

I think the OP should spend his money on a guitar and not on home studio equipment, both for reasons suggested in that article and others. But I fail to see how that article supports an argument in favour of purchasing a cheaply made instrument in any way whatsoever.

nickcave wrote:

That's a €200 guitar with about another €200 of recording equipment. The playing isn't great, but the sound is excellent, which is the point here.

Clearly, that's subjective. I would disagree with your assessment of that recording.

fish-head

nickcave wrote:

It's a Crafter.

Crafter are some of the worst guitar's I've ever played. Couldn't hold any more contempt for them.. That said, you like yours so it's down to opinion and getting the right feel for them I guess.

One man's piece-o-shoes is another man's pot-o-gold.

nickcave

But I fail to see how that article supports an argument in favour of purchasing a cheaply made instrument in any way whatsoever.

It doesn't. Why the hell would I be arguing for that?

What I'm saying is...

Getting yourself into the frame of mind where you think "OK, I'll save up for a while, buy some seriously expensive gear, and THEN I'll have great sound" is the trap which gives artists a second ladder to climb. That's what the OP is. He's a budding artist. For someone like you to try and drag him into your way of thinking as a sound engineer (which is plainly obvious) pains me to say the least, because you're doing so will rob and hope he has of prolificacy.

Read the article. The example taking the case of two musicians, one buying a 4-track, the other buying a DAW explains what my point is.

I'm not out to offend anyone, and I'm not trying to start any flame wars, but honestly, to fitz and Eoin Madsen, ye are sound engineers (studio musicians fit the same bill) and I completely understand your position. @fitz of course you're right, there's very little depth to the tone, very little sustain, pretty flat dynamic, and @Eoin Madsen, I agree in retrospect, the sound from my clip is not 'excellent', certainly not by your standards.

But where's the value in training the OP in that type of self-critique? It'll set him back years, if he ever gets back to being where he is now at all.

I'm guessing here, but @OP, I'd say the you have ambitions as a musician, first and foremost. The guitars you have are both better than my own. You should stick with them. Don't infer that I want you to buy my cheap guitar, that's madness. You have plenty scope with what you have. Go and record you music.

fitz

I would also suggest that having invested in something quality, there is often greater impetus and hunger to play, as the instrument is more enjoyable to play and to listen to. If you look at it this way, you can end up being quite prolific, as you're playing more, and probably writing more.

If we assume there's some level of playing ability existing here, how is saving up and buying a better quality instrument a trap?
Of course it's not going to make you play better, but you'll certainly improve the quality of the sound you produce.
How is that not something that every musician should aspire to?

If he's a budding artist who's serious about his music, surely he'll want to make it sound as good as it possibly can? If he has the money to enable him to improve the instruments he's using to achieve that, then surely it's advisable.

With the amount of artists out there now having access to recording facilities, the better quality you produce, the more you'll stand out from the crowd. Self critique is an essential skill in this regard, you have to be able to hear and see where you can be better, and do something about it to be able to produce the best results you can, obviously within reason. But I think if you're serious about making music, there's nothing wrong with having high standards to aspire to.

Plus, don't underestimate the amount of money a good instrument can save you in terms of mixing time and resources.

Eoin Madsen

nickcave wrote:

Getting yourself into the frame of mind where you think "OK, I'll save up for a while, buy some seriously expensive gear, and THEN I'll have great sound" is the trap which gives artists a second ladder to climb. That's what the OP is. He's a budding artist. For someone like you to try and drag him into your way of thinking as a sound engineer (which is plainly obvious) pains me to say the least, because you're doing so will rob and hope he has of prolificacy.

A finely made guitar is not a piece of studio equipment. Nor is there any reason why owning one would entail being dragged into a life of home recording. You're getting sucked into a rather extremist point of view. All of the artists I've encountered on the scene in Dublin who have an any notable degree of success have invested whatever money was necessary into an instrument that helps them achieve them the sound they want. Trying to suggest that such an investment will in some abstract way hinder someone's musical career has no basis in reason, either by logic or by example.

If the OP was happy with the sound of his instrument, I think it unlikely he'd be here asking for advice.

NeMiSiS

Agree with Eoin, you get what you pay for in most cases. You can say that 1/100 12 euro guitars are abso****ingloutly the most amazing, but the build quality you get with higher end guitars, you will be getting 98/100. This being said though, I am not hung up on how much things cost, if it sounds good.. I will play it.. if it "feels" good all the better.

I think shooting someone down and saying nearly that they are going to spoil the music they want to create just because they spend 2000 euro on a guitar.. is a bit rich..

My advice would be, pick your budget, and go play as many guitars as you can within that budget +/- 500 euro or so. Then make up your mind on the one you like, and buy it.

TK

nickcave

Eoin Madsen wrote:

Trying to suggest that such an investment will in some abstract way hinder someone's musical career has no basis in reason, either by logic or by example.

How is what I'm suggesting in any way abstract? It has a basis in reason, by logic and example. Even if you accept that by the very nature of my argument, a musician who suffers this fate would sink into obscurity thus reducing my ability to use example to 'people I know' or 'my friend', the author of that article, Ronan Chris Murphy, admits himself to having suffered from it.

Clearly we'll have to agree to differ. I've said what I wanted to say and let the OP and readers take what they want from it.

fitz

Tbh, the article has little relevance, because it's talking about investment in a home studio, not an instrument. I think you've misinterpreted it's meaning.
It's essentially suggesting that if you try and become a home recordist as well as a musician, that the time you invest in getting your recording setup going will take away from the time you spend as a musician, hence effecting your career as a musician in a negative fashion.
Which is a completely different debate, and an entirely subjective one to boot, as the music industry, and careers in it, have no hard and fast rules.

So, really, how does your point have any bearing on whether the OP should buy a quality instrument before embarking on the recording sessions he has planned for the near future? There's no suggestion that he's going to spend money on studio gear, or that he'll be recording it himself.

Eoin Madsen

nickcave wrote:

How is what I'm suggesting in any way abstract? It has a basis in reason, by logic and example. Even if you accept that by the very nature of my argument, a musician who suffers this fate would sink into obscurity thus reducing my ability to use example to 'people I know' or 'my friend', the author of that article, Ronan Chris Murphy, admits himself to having suffered from it.

Buy an expensive guitar and you'll stop writing songs and promoting your career...? Given the number of exceptions to the rule I think it's fair to say that any examples in which this has happened could quite credibly be accounted to coincidence.