I don't know if his braces work better or not, but they sure look cool.
Look here
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Call Me a Cynic http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=5238 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Graham Steward [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't know if his braces work better or not, but they sure look cool.
Look here |
|
| Author: | Bobc [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Isn't his bracing some kind of plastic or fibergalss molded into a one piece struture? |
|
| Author: | Dave White [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Michael, Whilst not disagreeing about the thrust of your thread on "product placement" techniques, I do have a bit of a hobby horse about the upper bout thing. As Mike Doolin says on his website: "As it turns out, traditional non-cutaway guitar designs use heavy bracing around the soundhole to support the fretboard and to resist the constant pull of string tension. This makes the area of the top above the waist (the "upper bout") acoustically dead." I do think that if you take away the constraints of having to brace to death the upper bout purely for neck support and look to alternative means such as floating/cantilevered fingerboards and buttress braces then there are acoustic gains (or "differences" as you may not always like the changes) to be had acoustically. I think it adds to the overtones and harmonics and have read on other forums that Rick Turner does too. As in the DNA differences between chimanzees and humans these are in the order of fractions of a percent but in building the sort of guitars I think we aspire to these are critical limits. Or as I think Mario has said it's like building and tuning race car engines. My sermon over. As to your question, unless you are very principled I suspect "hype" takes over from "marketing" when the size of your business turns from having to sell enough to make a good living (or any sort of living  ) to having to meet the sales and profit targets to keep the investors/bankers happy. Some are better than others, Taylor while not immune seem to keep more on the "principled" side of hype.
|
|
| Author: | Shane Neifer [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Bob, Aren't you thinking of Garrison? Out of Newfoundland, he has all of his braces as one unit and then adds the wood in between. The composie braces even act as bindings and stuff like that. There is a bit of hype there also. I just look at the McPherson braces and think "hmmm, laminated, heavy, unshaped to remove mass, applied on a layer of spruce attached to a cedar top" and wonder how can that top breath!, let alone move! Isn't the name of the game, build these things on the brink of destruction to get the very most out of them? That McPherson top looks like it support my Duramax Diesel Crew Cab pickup! I could be all wrong though.....it's happened before... Shane |
|
| Author: | Cocephus [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mike, I have to agree with the over-hype thing. Too many times have I seen John Q. Public buy into things that aren`t what they`re cracked up to be. Seems to me that a good clientel base and a reputation should be enough to get things on a roll (not to mention craftsmanship). Then again, I`m not rich and famous, yet. New words? What`s going on here? when did the word "Normality" become "Normalcy" and on and on. I dunno.
By the way, those braces look to me like the cast iron frame in a piano. Gold paint and some pinstripes surely will sell! 
|
|
| Author: | Shawn [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dont call me a cynic Some of the features that you dispute the effect of have been proven to be of merit, several of them discussed in this forum. There are several builders who use cantilevered necks...archtops in particular. Anything that constrains the vibration of the top can limit the air exchange and affect the volume and quality of the sound...Romanillos and others use "flying" transverse braces and extend the main fan braces much further than in a traditional Torres bracing pattern in an effort to extend the vibrating surface of the guitar. Soundhole size and placement have also been discussed, most eloquently by Alan Carruth and has a big effect on the frequencies modes at which the guitar sound. Just because a sound hole is not centered doesnt mean that it is random and has not been researched. There are several pictures of McPherson guitars over the years in which he tried different sizes and shapes of holes before standardizing his process to what it is today. There are as many ways to brace an instrument as there are luthiers. On this forum people have discussed the angle at which their X-braces meet, Grant has talked about how flintknapping influenced his ideas about bracing, and still others have posted pictures of various bracing patterns they were experimented with. All variations in bracing affect the sound and tone of the instrument. In the end it is about getting as good a sound of the type you are striving for regardless of how that bracing pattern looks to others. There is nothing the McPherson does as part of his method of building that others have not done variations on...he has just refined a design for the sound and market that he is building for... One of the related things that initially people looked on as a very different way of looking at voicing an instrument is the Chaldni glitter pattern work that Alan Carruth and others have done. Alan and others have observed that the resulting sound that comes from a combination of soundhole, top thickness, bracing patterns and more can be seen in the shape of the resonance patterns observed and that by tuning the guitar for a different pattern affects lots of other things that influence how the sound, tone and projection of an instrument is heard. Until you have seen and done the level of testing that others have done regarding all of the details that can affect sound, I would not criticize another builders claims. Have you developed over a time an approach to building that is unique to your guitars and method of contruction? Until someone has seen the level of effort someone like Taylor has done to refine his neck tolerance by use of precise shims, or seen how Charles Fox who has been building great guitars for 30+ years is still trying to try new methods of construction, there is very little to be gained in criticizing others. Just read some of the posts where luthiers on this forum added side ports to their guitars after seeing another builders guitar and how it changed the way they thought about the sound of their guitar... Regarding Marketing...marketing can always tend to lean towards hyperbole...full of adjectives and superlatives...always meant to be taken with a grain of salt. Successful builders who run production shops build to a design that yields a fairly consistent sound...this can be said for Martin, Gibson, Taylor, et al...it doesnt make their instruments better than another, just a matter of producing a sound and level of craftsmanship that is consistent with other instruments from the same maker. I play and build classical guitars and have heard and played a Smallman which according to its own hype is superior to other classical guitars...much of the construction, paper thin tops with balsa/carbon fiber laminated lattice bracing are very loud compared to other Classicals...they sell for over 10,000 more than I charge for a guitar but to me I dont like the sound and prefer a more traditional spanish sound...it doesnt make my guitars any less good or bad, just built for a different type of sound for a different type of customer. For the most part all sales comes down to a person to person interaction in which a level of understanding and trust is established. Whether I buy a Taylor from a Guitar Center, Buy a $20,000 classical through a consultant, get a luthier to build me an instrument to my liking or buy it because my favorite musician plays one, it always comes down to the buyer being comfortable that they are making the right choice in getting what they want at a price that they are okay paying. When I know that Phil Keaggy plays an Olsen then I am intrigued...why not Gallop, a Fox, a Parker, a Manzer... it just means that they saw or heard something in that instrument or something about that builder than they put their trust in. Websites and advertising dont sell instruments, they only serve to get someones attention enough to get them to look at your instrument over another. The marketplace determines whose marketing and product is successful and whose is not. If McPherson is successful and players like the sound then more power to him and I wish him well. |
|
| Author: | PaulB [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Shawn] Websites and advertising dont sell instruments, they only serve to get someones attention enough to get them to look at your instrument over another.[/QUOTE] I really beg to differ here. While I don't agree or disagree with the rest of what you said (having never listened too or played one of the guitars in question). If websites or advertising don't sell instruments, then that's just money down the drain, and NO company can afford that. Nor would a sucessful company tolerate it. A buddy of mine emailed me about all this hype that he'd read in a magasine about these guitars, he was all fired up to buy one (or have me make him one) just on the advertising alone, he'd never even heard nor played one himself. I was able to cast enough doubt in his mind so as to make him think about it, and he seems now to have lost inerest in them. If the claims of the advertising get luthiers arguing, what hope does poor 'ol John Q Public have? There's a reason for web sites and advertising, they not only sell product, they also get people elected. |
|
| Author: | JJ Donohue [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I guess it all comes down to how do they sound. We wouldn't buy a car without taking it for a ride and we shouldn't buy guitars before playing them. Has anyone ever played one...and how do they sound? Answer that question and we can cut to the chase as to whether such advertising is justified or not. |
|
| Author: | Brock Poling [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=PaulB] [QUOTE=Shawn] Websites and advertising dont sell instruments, they only serve to get someones attention enough to get them to look at your instrument over another.[/QUOTE] I really beg to differ here. While I don't agree or disagree with the rest of what you said (having never listened too or played one of the guitars in question). If websites or advertising don't sell instruments, then that's just money down the drain, and NO company can afford that. Nor would a sucessful company tolerate it. [/QUOTE] Down the drain? OMG.... please tell me you are just kidding.... ..'fraid not. Ever heard of "branding"? This is a common misunderstanding about marketing and selling. They are entirely separate objectives. Marketing/branding works to plant a certain emotion, an instant understand of 'who you are' and why your products or services are valuable (Think FedEx -- When it absolutely positively has to be there overnight... these are more than catchy phrases. That is a BRAND -- a value that they want you to know instinctivly about them). By contrast, selling are tools and techniques to try to get customers to take steps toward purchases. They are different... both important to be sure. But to say that a web site is money down the drain if it doesn't make the cash register ring is extremely simplistic -- and no offense to you for this POV. but it is wrong. There is a lot more to it. |
|
| Author: | Don Williams [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
All I know is, that I would love to get players such as Brad Paisley and Phil Keaggy to play and endorse my guitars. Those guys know guitars, and if they like them that much, then there must be something to it. In fact, I've tried to contact Brad Paisley to get a guitar in his hands, and next thing I knew he was playing that odd-looking guitar with a soundhole on the side of the top. Looking inside, you have to know that this was engineered, and not just bracing done on a whim for a marketing platform. I think that when something is a radical departure from tradition or just a departure from the normal, we somehow get it into our minds that it can't be right. The reality is that there are a lot of ways to build a guitar that work. Tim McKnight has spent a lot of time building ports into the side of his guitars, and he is finding acceptance of them by a number of buyers. It gets some more of the sound in the ear of the player. He experimented. He found something that works for him and his customers. Is he guilty of using a marketing tool to sell? So what? It works! I agree with Shawn...you have to spend time doing the experimentation before you can judge. I used to criticise folks for drilling holes in braces and all kinds of stuff, but having never tried it, I can't actually judge it on an intellectual level. Shame on me. More than a century ago, C.F. Martin came up with the X-Brace which has become the industry standard. It stands to reason that eventually someone will find something that could actually be better. It happens. That's the way it is with anything... |
|
| Author: | Bruce Dickey [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Cynicism must be fought. It takes the joy out of making a guitar. Or enjoying a guitar someone else makes. Michael, lighten up. I thought the top and back bracing inside these guitars are rather cool, whether they work or not. Sandwiched braces, hmmm, don't some of our OLFers do that? Oddly placed sound orifices, hmmm, don't some of our OLFers do that? Hype about the product, hmmm, you may have a point on that one. Nothing like believing in oneself. Seeing this guy is rather the entrepreneur, who owns a guitar company and a bow company who bought out Pearson Bows. This guy has some chops in the business realm. Hats off to anyone with Chops. No matter what they do. Gotta admire Chops. Very few people know the name of Amati. Everyone knows the name of his student. |
|
| Author: | Brock Poling [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think when it comes to marketing you are right, the lutherie world is FULL of hype. Both bad hype and good hype. I see lots of players (PLAYERS!) who are perpetuating this by trying to split hairs about the way one tonewood sounds over another, or "What kind of sound will I get if I combine Mexican Cocobolo with Canadian Adirondack Spruce and Sitka bracing?" And luthiers jump in to answer it.... !!!!!! Certainly, I think lutherie expeience helps to frame questions like this, but the answers I am seeing back "dry woody sound", "warm, sweet sound with lots of overtones"..... you are kidding me... right? I find this to be magical thinking. Not that tonewoods are not important. I use lots of different wood, I like to experiment as much as the next person, and I certainly have my favorites. But I really resist the temptation to go WAY out on a limb about wood. I think this is one variable in a very complex equation. and... that is just one place where I think bad hype is in play. We perpetuate things that we all know to be dubious at best. The truth is you can't REALLY say for sure until the guitar is built. (Again, not saying that wood has no effect, but it isn't a magic bullet to dial in the sound you want, and we all know that.) Good hype though is about carving out a market position and claiming it as your own. Someone on our forum... (I forget who... sorry) has his sig line to be about "worship guitars". I think that is a good idea and "good hype". Clearly his guitars are no more musical in a worship setting than they are in a recording studio, but that is the market he wants to be known for and he has focused his attention there. Bravo!!! I think the same can be said of technological advances. If you feel like you have built a better mousetrap great. say it. Then be prepared to defend it. I don't see anything wrong with McPherson's advertising. How about Martin and Gibson selling on their history? Is that hype? Sure it is, but is it all bad? No. I think it is just branding? What about using celebrities in your marketing? Is that hype? yep. That implies, "if you buy one of my gutars, someday you might be as good/famous as {insert the name of your favorite star here}" Not all of this is bad. The bottom line for all of this is to impress upon you an understanding for what a company wants to be known for, and to get you to pay attention long enough to perhaps take a close look at their products. I think one of the very best branding examples is Macintosh. Just try to take a mac away from a graphic designer. (This is not a PC / MAC debate... frankly I don't care which is truly better, the point is about perceptions, not technology). A designer will fight you to the death defending his/her mac. They won't even LOOK at a PC. Because to them having a mac is one of the tools of the trade for being creative and if you don't have a mac, well, you must not be very good. Clearly that is complete hooey... creative people are creative people regardless of what tools they use. But the brand image that the apple folks have managed to impress upon them about the mac hardware has soaked through ever fiber of their being until it is a religious fervor. but is that a bad thing? I am not convinced it is. |
|
| Author: | Pwoolson [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, what Brock said, especially about the tonewood debate. |
|
| Author: | Pwoolson [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
By the way, I've played a McPherson and I've heard one on stage. They sound really good. Do they sound better than any other really good sounding guitar? I doubt it. Is the really good tone from the inovations? No clue. But whatever they are doing is working to make good sounding guitars. I'm jealous that I don't have the capital that they do to start this huge marketing campaign. |
|
| Author: | Steve Kinnaird [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 6:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Like Paul, I too have played a McPherson. In fact several. I have the luxury of having a high end guitar boutique nearby, where a number of McP's can (and have) been played. Then the interesting thing is to compare them to, say, the Sheldon Schwartzs (sp?) that are there. Or the Goodalls, or the Petroses, or the Everetts, or.... And, I can report, with Paul, that the McPhersons DO sound good. Really good. Scary good. But their product is not demonstrably superior to all the others. Let me run out on your branch Michael and just say I know how you feel. Whether Mc'P is as guilty as you say or not, it must have proved to be the last straw in what you describe well as "weariness" (you said "tired", right?) I feel your pain, share your fatigue, but perhaps the best thing to do is laugh. And keep building! SK |
|
| Author: | CarltonM [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Brock Poling] I don't see anything wrong with McPherson's advertising. [/QUOTE] Me neither. The question is, does McPherson believe what he's saying? I think he does. Does he know any of his claims to be an outright lie? I doubt it. Do his buyers get an inferior instrument? Apparently not. We all have our own philosophies, and we tend to stick by them. Besides, how far would he get (or Taylor, Martin, Gibson, etc.) if his slogan was, "'Bout as good as anything!"? The buyer does have some responsibility for self-education. |
|
| Author: | Alan Carruth [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, that top bracing looks pretty interesting to me! Guitar designs are the end result of a process of Lamarkian evolution, which can proceed very quickly when there's any selective pressure. It's likely that the 'tradtional' designs are about as good as they can be using the traditional technology. If you introduce a new technology then there's the possibility of improvements, but it's hard to say 'how big'. There's also the question of 'what's an improvement?'. Smallman has been mentioned: a big improvement if you're trying to make your living playing unamplified in large halls, but pretty far from 'traditional' in sound. It's entirely possible that there will always be some sacrifice of the 'traditional' tone when you make an 'improvement', so it comes down to a trade-off. Working within the tradition we're fighting for the last few ounces of tone: the differences between the 'best' and the 'average' are bound to be small, because the designs are so good. To the extent a new design is really an 'improvement' maybe we should expect it to get noticably better as it is refined. Time will tell. I can think of a couple of 'improved' designs that have been around for quite a while and haven't gained much market share, despite a lot of hype in some cases. It makes me wonder how 'improved' they really are. And that, I guess, is the bottom line. Torres' refinement of the Spanish guitar took over the world within a few years, no hype needed. Martin's X brace is the standard because it works. It's easy to get excited over something 'new and improved', and guitarists are no exception to that: they fall for hype too. Even good ones. In the long run, though, no amount of hype will sell inferior instruments once their real merits become known. It's like those bad movies that open everywhere, with a lot of hype so that they can sell lots of tickets before the 'buzz' gets going. Whatever the merits of his instruments I can't blame Mc'P for 'branding' or 'positioning' hemself agressively. He's done a fair amount of R&D work, and quite possibly has made some 'improvements'. Whether everything works just the way his advertising says it does is an open question. Heck, there's a lot we don't understand yet about how the guitar works, so his opinion is probably as good as just about anybody's. In the long run he'll stand or fall like the rest of us, on the merits of his design, and only time will tell what those are. |
|
| Author: | tl507362 [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've played one too. It did sound good, but was really heavy to me. I thought the baranik that I played sounded better to my ear. To me it has a big bass response, and very nice highs, but not so much mid range. It also seemed to lose the seperation of notes if it was driven hard. That is just me perception from someone who has played for 30 years, and currently play a Santa Cruz, and one that I built myself. So yes, they are good guitars, but not any better than the competition out there. |
|
| Author: | PaulB [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE] This is a common misunderstanding about marketing and selling. They are entirely separate objectives.[/QUOTE] So a company launches a new mega dollar marketing campaign but they don't expect it to impact their sales figures? |
|
| Author: | Brock Poling [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
It depends. Adverting "can" influence sales. For instance look at the huge program to promote the GM employee discount. That used advertising to drive sales. Pure and simple. But without a huge platform of branding to stand on they certainly wouldn't get very far. (We could debate the quality of the detroit brands forever... but that is not the point.... we all at least know who they are and recognize they are competent about making cars/trucks). Most of those mega dollar advertising campaings are trying to associate the product / service with a specific value belief or benefit association. Look no further than a beer commercial for that. The competition between the brands is blood thirsty, but nobody ever really says "buy a bud". They come at it in a much more subtle way. So do most products. Brand is definitely the way to go with advertising. If you want to sell, I would approach that totally differently. Want some ideas? |
|
| Author: | Don Williams [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Speak, Oh Fountain of Knowledge! |
|
| Author: | Bill Greene [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
That's BFOK to you Williams, the "Big Fountain of Knowledge." 
Bill, hey, shouldn't you be downstairs working on that brazilian guitar I ordered? |
|
| Author: | Don Williams [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I stand corrected! WHAT brazilian guitar? Did I miss somethin'? 
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|