|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Dec 1, 2019 16:39:21 GMT -6
I'm looking to grab an acoustic for the studio, but don't have loads of money or play well enough to get something great.
The Eastman E2D-CG is catching my fancy right now. Looks good, solid wood, ~$500. Sounds great in this video.
Anything else out there I should be considering? Cheaper is better. No need at all for built in electronics. Literally a studio guitar only.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 1, 2019 18:53:19 GMT -6
Check out the mid level Mitchell acoustics. Very good for the money. I got one years ago that beat out much higher prices guitars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Dec 8, 2019 21:39:00 GMT -6
Yamaha LL11
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Dec 9, 2019 10:31:45 GMT -6
I think I want to buy a Yamaha LL16, either the rosewood or mahogany, they have a made in Japan model too for a few bucks more.
Haven't played one but I am willing to take a blind shot on it. The made in china mahogany one is in your price range as well as mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by guitfiddler on Dec 9, 2019 14:20:59 GMT -6
Orangewood-These are getting really good reviews for the price...10% off the already cheap price. Claiming but backing up claims. Watch you tube videos. They compare a $7000 Martin against the Orangewood. They are comparing the Taylor line of $2000 to the Orangewoods. Just check them out...30 day return policy. They have a model for $195, and models that range up to $645, that they are claiming is very good. They are selling out that they are so popular. I will have to try one out because of the buzz, not a literal buzz, lol. Professionally setup and playable upon arrival. I have no dog in this fight, and yes, these claims are ridiculous. You just never know...I’m just letting you know that this might be exactly what you are looking for!
A lot more videos out there...
|
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 10, 2019 10:57:42 GMT -6
^^^^^^^
Perhaps if you're only using acoustic guitars to support a song and cut through a busy mix I could see the Orangewood, but for acoustic guitar based songs- where the bottom end matters- the Martin was far superior imo. It would be interesting to hear at what price point the bottom end of an acoustic guitar starts to get closer to the $7K Martin.
|
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 10, 2019 11:04:54 GMT -6
I'm looking to grab an acoustic for the studio, but don't have loads of money or play well enough to get something great. The Eastman E2D-CG is catching my fancy right now. Looks good, solid wood, ~$500. Sounds great in this video. Anything else out there I should be considering? Cheaper is better. No need at all for built in electronics. Literally a studio guitar only. When he capo's and finger picks it, it sounded like the high E string was frettng out when he struck it. Can you find one near you? My suggestion is if so, play it and see if there's any fretting out issues where the note doesn't ring true. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Dec 10, 2019 13:24:53 GMT -6
I'm looking to grab an acoustic for the studio, but don't have loads of money or play well enough to get something great. The Eastman E2D-CG is catching my fancy right now. Looks good, solid wood, ~$500. Sounds great in this video. Anything else out there I should be considering? Cheaper is better. No need at all for built in electronics. Literally a studio guitar only. Cool. Sounds like it's got a built in phase shifter. Normally you pay extra for that. |
|
|
|
Post by jacobamerritt on Dec 10, 2019 18:29:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Dec 10, 2019 22:28:06 GMT -6
As mentioned, Yamaha tend to be solid. I haven’t played an Eastman acoustic in a while but recently tried one of their 335s. Was very good with the finish work just a bit sloppy around the neck/body joint. But they’re not exactly cheap for a Chinese made instrument. Not sure where their lower priced acoustics come in at these days.
A couple years back picked up a NOS all solid wood Recording King for $200 Canuck. I think the msrp was about 600. Slope shouldered dread. Decent kinda thunky tone. Maybe not the most versatile though.
As you know you kinda need to play them. An Eastman, Blueridge, Recording King and a whole bunch of offshore brands are definitely worth looking into. But I don’t think you’d go wrong going Yamaha.
Cheers,
Geoff
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 10, 2019 22:32:13 GMT -6
I'm looking to grab an acoustic for the studio, but don't have loads of money or play well enough to get something great. The Eastman E2D-CG is catching my fancy right now. Looks good, solid wood, ~$500. Sounds great in this video. Anything else out there I should be considering? Cheaper is better. No need at all for built in electronics. Literally a studio guitar only. I think this Eastman sounds really nice here. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 11, 2019 9:56:05 GMT -6
I've mentioned it before, when I was looking for something for the studio, I didn't necessarily want something crazy expensive that everyone would put their hands on. I've seen plenty of folks grab out their 1500$ taylors and bang them on stuff and drop them off stands, etc.. I would be afraid that a studio piece would get even more banged up over time, so I chose to pick something in the ~500$ range that would sound better than the regular learner's epiphone, but not entice me to homicide if someone were to accidentally destroy it..
So I got my cousin (1000x better guitar player than me) to drive around the city to all the guitar shops and play acoustics around 500$ while I stood back and listened.
The consensus we found is that most lower priced guitars are horribly boomy in the low end. With my penchant for close-miking acoustics, that would make a very muddy track with the proximity effect. The better the guitar, the less boomy they are and the more rich their midrange is, unless you're a Taylor and then you're too bright pretty much across the board.
I really liked Alvarez acoustics overall but even the used ones were on the top end of my price range.
I then tried the mid-line Mitchell, which only GC was carrying at the time. It was around 400$ but this specific one was marked down to 200$ since it was a model year old. Not boomy sounding, fretting is nice, the inlays and bindings are nice looking and pretty well finished.
One thing that really stuck out to me was that in ALL the guitars we played and listened to, even different guitars of the same make AND model would sound different from each other. I can't emphasize enough that each guitar should be evaluated individually.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Dec 12, 2019 6:19:03 GMT -6
One thing that really stuck out to me was that in ALL the guitars we played and listened to, even different guitars of the same make AND model would sound different from each other. I can't emphasize enough that each guitar should be evaluated individually. I'm not the expert of anything, but because a preferred guitar sound can be subjectively different for people in the character they're looking for, and I very much agree with svart that two of the same make and model usually sound a little different from each other (just like mic's). I would say take some time and try and test them all for yourself first before buying, not only to find your preferred type of guitar sound for the price, but to find the one guitar that pops more than the others for you. If it were me, after trying them all out, I'd also consider buying used from craigslist where you can try that guitar out first since many people buy guitars they think they'll use, never do and sell and where you may find even more value for the money. Last two bits for me, and why I think you have to personally play anything you consider for yourself first, is while I've come across some very good sounding budget/midpriced guitars when playing more open lower register chords, many of them lose the sustain at a greater rate than you'd expect the more you work up the neck. This and like others kind of referenced, though a inexpensive mic can do all or most of the frequencies, a quality mic typically is balanced not only in having them all, but also the even volume of them for sitting well in the mix and what I'd also keep an ear out for while checking guitars out. While I'd personally prefer the body and bottom Swurvman was talking about above, I know tracking engineers who are happy to track a Sigma for example that may not be as deep in the bottom end but is otherwise uniform and already sits in the mix well for them because for the style of music they're doing they'd cut the bottom out anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Dec 17, 2019 8:20:39 GMT -6
FWIW, I grabbed the Eastman.
I went to a couple guitar centers and tried a few guitars and none of the cheaper stuff grabbed me by the balls. I got the Eastman brand new for $450, so if I don't like it, at least I'm not gonna take a bath on it. Scheduled to land on Thursday.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 18, 2019 0:46:48 GMT -6
I've mentioned it before, when I was looking for something for the studio, I didn't necessarily want something crazy expensive that everyone would put their hands on. I've seen plenty of folks grab out their 1500$ taylors and bang them on stuff and drop them off stands, etc.. I would be afraid that a studio piece would get even more banged up over time, so I chose to pick something in the ~500$ range that would sound better than the regular learner's epiphone, but not entice me to homicide if someone were to accidentally destroy it.. So I got my cousin (1000x better guitar player than me) to drive around the city to all the guitar shops and play acoustics around 500$ while I stood back and listened. The consensus we found is that most lower priced guitars are horribly boomy in the low end. With my penchant for close-miking acoustics, that would make a very muddy track with the proximity effect. The better the guitar, the less boomy they are and the more rich their midrange is, unless you're a Taylor and then you're too bright pretty much across the board. I really liked Alvarez acoustics overall but even the used ones were on the top end of my price range. I then tried the mid-line Mitchell, which only GC was carrying at the time. It was around 400$ but this specific one was marked down to 200$ since it was a model year old. Not boomy sounding, fretting is nice, the inlays and bindings are nice looking and pretty well finished. One thing that really stuck out to me was that in ALL the guitars we played and listened to, even different guitars of the same make AND model would sound different from each other. I can't emphasize enough that each guitar should be evaluated individually. If I'm not mistaken, Mitchell is a Guitar Center store brand. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 18, 2019 7:57:39 GMT -6
I've mentioned it before, when I was looking for something for the studio, I didn't necessarily want something crazy expensive that everyone would put their hands on. I've seen plenty of folks grab out their 1500$ taylors and bang them on stuff and drop them off stands, etc.. I would be afraid that a studio piece would get even more banged up over time, so I chose to pick something in the ~500$ range that would sound better than the regular learner's epiphone, but not entice me to homicide if someone were to accidentally destroy it.. So I got my cousin (1000x better guitar player than me) to drive around the city to all the guitar shops and play acoustics around 500$ while I stood back and listened. The consensus we found is that most lower priced guitars are horribly boomy in the low end. With my penchant for close-miking acoustics, that would make a very muddy track with the proximity effect. The better the guitar, the less boomy they are and the more rich their midrange is, unless you're a Taylor and then you're too bright pretty much across the board. I really liked Alvarez acoustics overall but even the used ones were on the top end of my price range. I then tried the mid-line Mitchell, which only GC was carrying at the time. It was around 400$ but this specific one was marked down to 200$ since it was a model year old. Not boomy sounding, fretting is nice, the inlays and bindings are nice looking and pretty well finished. One thing that really stuck out to me was that in ALL the guitars we played and listened to, even different guitars of the same make AND model would sound different from each other. I can't emphasize enough that each guitar should be evaluated individually. If I'm not mistaken, Mitchell is a Guitar Center store brand. I do believe they were in the mid-2000's but now seem to be sold all over. Their low end stuff seems to be relatively mediocre quality but their mid and high line stuff is much better, but should be evaluated on a per-guitar basis. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 18, 2019 11:47:10 GMT -6
If I'm not mistaken, Mitchell is a Guitar Center store brand. I do believe they were in the mid-2000's but now seem to be sold all over. Their low end stuff seems to be relatively mediocre quality but their mid and high line stuff is much better, but should be evaluated on a per-guitar basis. That seems a little odd to me - Mitchell has been a GC house brand since at least the mid 80s if not earlier - but it could be that the current owners are divesting themselves of some of their brands. If so this is the first I've heard of it, but I haven't been to a GC in a couple or three years so I might be a bit behind the times.
Remember that Musician's Friend and a couple of other outlets are subsidiaries of GC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Dec 18, 2019 12:51:06 GMT -6
That reminds me of an online review where someone was excited to have a new Acoustic solid state practice amp from Guitar Center because "John Paul Jones played one" even though the only thing similar now is the name of the brand. Bless their heart.
I have a G.C. Acoustic G10 and it's a fine little cheap amp. The G20 was not so great so it went back. A vintage '70s Acoustic bass stack is something completely different.
I'm pretty sure Rogue is a Musicians Friend/ Guitar Center brand too. Some of the absolutely worst built pedals I have ever had the pleasure to witness. Same with the lap steel.
|
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Dec 19, 2019 13:56:51 GMT -6
I have a Taylor and a Martin, but I still really enjoy playing my affordable Seagull acoustic guitar from the early 90s. It's the only one I own with a built in preamp, so it's seen a fair amount of live use and is well worn.
|
|
|
|
Post by theshea on Dec 22, 2019 13:11:50 GMT -6
I have a Taylor and a Martin, but I still really enjoy playing my affordable Seagull acoustic guitar from the early 90s. It's the only one I own with a built in preamp, so it's seen a fair amount of live use and is well worn. love my 2000 seagull s6 natural. one ugly guitar to look at but it sounds so good! |
|
|
|
Post by subspace on Dec 30, 2019 17:48:18 GMT -6
Just went through this for a project I'm tracking, acoustic/electric artist needs to lay down pure acoustic tracks. I stopped at a couple places and tried out Recording Kings and used Yamahas, then tried a Blueridge that was a bit pricier. Killed the Recording Kings and Yamahas on the first chord, i texted a picture to the artist and said it was a nice one if he wanted to give it a try. He texted me back two hours later he bought it, we'll be tracking it tonight. I stopped at one more place on the way home and they had the exact same model for $20 less, tried it out and it wasn't even close.
|
|
