Harlequin565
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,684
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
I have a Gretsch Electromatic electric guitar that I love. I think it was around £600 new. I also have a Spark practise amp for kicking around at home. I'm not in a band, don't gig any more, and just hack around at home for fun and learning. I was/am not very good, but can make it sound okay playing the songs I like. I used to play in a band, and it was a case of "the cheapest I can afford" so sound quality was never a factor. I've never been a guitar afficionado, just a player with instruments I can afford - which have generally been "cheap".
Recently, YouTube seems to be sending me reviews of various guitars at very expensive price points, but they all sound the same. When it comes to photography, I've never seen a difference between prints done on a calibrated screen vs prints done on a non-calibrated screen. With cameras, I think the difference between an R6 and an R6II is absolutely not worth the "upgrade" because the difference isn't worth the money. I wonder if perhaps I don't have the level of discernment that the marketeers (and influencers) do.
So I come to the TP Lounge to ask: Does the guitar really matter, apart from pickup choice? Once you get over the £500 bar, is it a case of very small incremental improvements that are perhaps so small, an ignorant uneducated ear might not pick up (no pun intended) on it? We've had crap guitars in the charity shop. The frets are knackered, the electronics are crackly, they are hard to play, the whole thing feels cheap (it probably was), so there is a clear improvement between "entry level" and whatever £600 is classed as, but once you get into that territory, I'm struggling to understand where the value lies other than in the name on the headstock.
A guitar's "sound" is surely as much from the amp as it is the guitar, if not moreso, so how much of a part does the guitar really play (again, no pun intended) in the delivery of the sound?
Caveat: Not talking about acoustic guitars. With them, the sound is the sound, and the form factor makes a difference, so I can hear & feel what I'm getting and in my experience, cheaper acoustics generally sound worse than expensive ones until you hit around the £1k mark.
Geez, this took a while to type. I'll shut up now...
Recently, YouTube seems to be sending me reviews of various guitars at very expensive price points, but they all sound the same. When it comes to photography, I've never seen a difference between prints done on a calibrated screen vs prints done on a non-calibrated screen. With cameras, I think the difference between an R6 and an R6II is absolutely not worth the "upgrade" because the difference isn't worth the money. I wonder if perhaps I don't have the level of discernment that the marketeers (and influencers) do.
So I come to the TP Lounge to ask: Does the guitar really matter, apart from pickup choice? Once you get over the £500 bar, is it a case of very small incremental improvements that are perhaps so small, an ignorant uneducated ear might not pick up (no pun intended) on it? We've had crap guitars in the charity shop. The frets are knackered, the electronics are crackly, they are hard to play, the whole thing feels cheap (it probably was), so there is a clear improvement between "entry level" and whatever £600 is classed as, but once you get into that territory, I'm struggling to understand where the value lies other than in the name on the headstock.
A guitar's "sound" is surely as much from the amp as it is the guitar, if not moreso, so how much of a part does the guitar really play (again, no pun intended) in the delivery of the sound?
Caveat: Not talking about acoustic guitars. With them, the sound is the sound, and the form factor makes a difference, so I can hear & feel what I'm getting and in my experience, cheaper acoustics generally sound worse than expensive ones until you hit around the £1k mark.
Geez, this took a while to type. I'll shut up now...




