TexasCHLforum.com

mr.72 wrote:Yes and a L-body Larrivee would probably have a 1-3/4" nut, although I don't know if a L-03 or L-01 would have the wide nut. A L-09 would.

I just checked their website, and the L-03 has a 1-3/4" nut. Their fingerstyle guitars (LSV-11) have 1-13/16" necks. I wonder if that extra 1/8" makes much difference? Doesn't matter though... ...at those prices, I can't afford one yet.

apparently I still have a lot to learn about guitars lol.

Guns may be a tool and a guitar an affair of the heart but I know that if Nobama gets elected the first thing he's banning is guns and prob. the fourth or fifth guitars. so I've got more time to buy a guitar lol.

TexasComputerDude wrote:apparently I still have a lot to learn about guitars lol.

IMHO there's at least as much you can learn about guitars as there is about guns.

Both can be a very expensive hobby.

mr.72 wrote:IMHO there's at least as much you can learn about guitars as there is about guns.

Guitar safety rules are much easier to teach, though.

mr.72 wrote:The "standard" nut width for most electric and steel-string acoustic guitars is 1-11/16". This is true for most Dreadnaught acoustics like Martin style guitars and also for the Ibanez electric in question.

Odd, I could've sworn my last Alvarez had wider spacing than the Charvel electric I had at the same time...of course, the last time I had one of each to compare was over 10 years ago. I went without for years, and wouldn't have one now except for the pawnshop having a cheapo Samick that played too well to pass up for the price.

I've been pondering the Martin Backpacker for years, though, and if I can ever stop spending all my money on cameras and guns, I'll have to get one.

Some Alvarez-Yairi guitars do have 1-3/4" nut width. Not all of them though!

I don't know about Charvel. Would not surprise me to find older Charvel guitars, the ones that were basically strat knockoffs, to have 1-5/8" nut width. But it is still true that 1-11/16" is the norm, acoustic or electric, for steel string guitars, and +/- 1/16" is not uncommon for certain guitars.

KD5NRH wrote:I've been pondering the Martin Backpacker for years, though, and if I can ever stop spending all my money on cameras and guns, I'll have to get one.

One of my younger brothers has had a Martin Backpacker for a number of years now, and he never plays it. He says it's a terrible guitar. An old girlfriend gave it to him. I always thought it was kind of an interesting idea, if you have a really active outdoor lifestyle and you need to take a guitar along camping. I'm too old and fat, and I don't camp anywhere that I can't drive right up to the campsite. There's always room for a full sized guitar in the back of my SUV.

well while I'm here, I might as well get the advice of the experts, thus hijacking my own thread.

I am looking to buy a new acoustic guitar. I broke mine yesterday. I want a good guitar with pretty good sound. But I'm also a college student without a lot of disposable income. Also bear in mind my fingers are short and stubby and its hard for me to make some chords on my acoustic.

I have my electric but the chicks I'm hunting are more into acoustic guitars lol. no rock freaks for me, I want to impress some good ole country girls.

Guitars. Great passtime.

Before my deceased Weimaraner bit my fret hand thumb and broke the bone into four pieces I was strumming a Fender Stratocaster.

I sure miss the time spent learning my favorite Pat Green, Robert Earl Keen, and other artist songs.

**sigh**

The thumb never healed enough to put the required pressure on the fret bar.

You freaks make me jealous.

At least it doesn't affect my shootin'.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:Before my deceased Weimaraner bit my fret hand thumb and broke the bone into four pieces I was strumming a Fender Stratocaster.

Did this have something to do with it becoming deceased?

KD5NRH wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Before my deceased Weimaraner bit my fret hand thumb and broke the bone into four pieces I was strumming a Fender Stratocaster.

Did this have something to do with it becoming deceased?

No. He bit me when I was trying to separate him and an Akita. They were doing the "to the death" thing. Long story.

He was my bestest friend.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:You freaks make me jealous.

At least it doesn't affect my shootin'.

Just don't get mad and shoot us!

Sorry about the thumb. That pretty much blows.

TexasComputerDude, there are lots of guitar choices, but just as with guns, you mostly get what you pay for. Instead of blindly offering a bunch of guitar suggestions to you, it would be helpful to know what is the maximum amount of money you are prepared to spend.

In acoustic guitars, the choice of wood is critical - particularly in the guitar's top. The type and quality of the wood in the top will have a huge effect on the guitar's sound quality. Many, but not all, of the better guitars (regardless of price point) have spruce tops, specifically Sitka or Engleman Spruce; but other woods can be used. But whether you get a guitar with a spruce top, or some other wood, avoid guitars with plywood tops. The easiest way to tell is by looking carefully and closely at the wood around the edge of the sound hole. In any case, you are far more likely to find plywood tops on cheaper guitars, which is why you should be prepared to spend a little more if you can. The difference in sound is remarkable, and can be heard just by tapping on the guitar top. You'll find that the guitars with solid tops resonate much louder and longer when tapped.

Martin makes - or used to make - a "cheap" guitar that saved money by making the fretboard out of plastic and the sides out of some kind of composite wood, but the top was made out of very good quality spruce and it sounded pretty good. A friend of mine bought one a few years ago for $500, which is cheap for anything carrying the Martin name. I once bought a grand auditorium sized Walden G730 for my wife's Christmas present in 2004 which cost about $550 at time. More recently they are available for less than that. Walden is an American company, although this guitar was made in China, and this particular guitar was designed by a former Taylor luthier. But all the wood is high quality, with a cedar top, rosewood sides, back, and fingerboard, Mahogany neck, and spruce x-bracing. Here is an owner review of this model. My wife's came with a very nice Walden branded hard shell case rather than the gig bag the reviewer mentions, which might explain the $100 price difference.

My point is that, if you can afford $400-$500, you can find a guitar that you'll probably keep for the rest of your life, even if you later add better and more expensive instruments to your collection.

TexasComputerDude wrote: I am looking to buy a new acoustic guitar. I broke mine yesterday. I want a good guitar with pretty good sound. But I'm also a college student without a lot of disposable income. Also bear in mind my fingers are short and stubby and its hard for me to make some chords on my acoustic.

The Martin DX1 or Walden mentioned would both be good choices. If you can't swing something in the $500 range you may want to also look at Seagull guitars. They have a solid cedar top with laminate sides, but note they have a slightly wider neck which may be an issue with short fingers. Your best bet, no matter what your price range, is to look in person to see what feels right & sounds good to you. Looking at their online dealer lists, Encore Music in Nacogdoches is the closest dealer to you for both Martin & Seagull. You'd have to drive further (Houston area or Canton) to get to a Walden dealer. Good luck!

anygunanywhere wrote: The thumb never healed enough to put the required pressure on the fret bar.

Time for some lessons Mr. Anygun.

I can play my guitar without my left thumb touching at all. I can play marginally better using my left thumb as an anchor but I don't use an appreciable amount of pressure. And I play pretty heavy strings (.011's on my electrics, .013's on my acoustics, "medium" in both cases).

All of my students can do it the same way. It's basic technique. You don't use the thumb to apply pressure.

The Annoyed Man wrote: TexasComputerDude, there are lots of guitar choices, but just as with guns, you mostly get what you pay for.

I will begin to disagree here. :) I am an aficionado of cheap guitars.

I have a bunch of guitars.

One guitar cost (used) $2200 and is valued at over $3000. New it would have cost over $5000. This is a premium acoustic guitar and I am extremely picky about acoustic guitars.
One cost $300 and is valued at nearly $3000 (it's old, and rare). I admit this is my favorite electric to play.
Three cost about $350 when new, and with a little bit of upgraded parts, are worth about $400 each used right now.
Two cost $140 and $126 respectively on ebay, and with replacement pickups and a repair on the one that was used, are now worth, well pretty much under $150 each. I played both of them for the past four or five weeks at church and I play them regularly. They are two of my main instruments.
One cost $41 for the body and neck on ebay, in junk condition. I bartered service on a guitar amp for a bridge and tuners, refinished the guitar myself, and then assembled it with pickups from the parts box. It is valued at maybe $100 right now. More if I take it apart and sell just the parts. I play it every single week on Wednesday at church, including today, and record with it regularly.

I think it is purely a myth that you get what you pay for with guitars. You can buy quality or junk at any price point. It is true that guitars vary, even within the same brand, model, etc., and that sometimes more expensive guitars can be more consistent unit to unit (that is, more consistently good), and sometimes cheaper guitars can take a higher degree of selectivity to find the ringer. It is also true that aside from things like tone, playability, etc., the biggest difference between a $1000 guitar and a $10,000 guitar is in appearance or brand name prestige.

Many, but not all, of the better guitars (regardless of price point) have spruce tops, specifically Sitka or Engleman Spruce;

Spruce is used because it is traditional, highly available, durable, easy to finish, and has the traditional appearance of an acoustic guitar top. Englemann spruce is quite different in tone from Sitka, much more like redwood or cedar. Truly high-end guitars are available with a variety of top woods, including many far more rare than spruce. One of my acoustics has a redwood top that comes from a 100-year-old beam from a demolished building in SF. There's a reason why they don't make all guitars with wood like that, and it has nothing to do with tone.

FWIW a solid top guitar does not always sound better. I was looking in the Musician's Friend catalog and they have a solid-top guitar for $150, brand new. The big difference in acoustic guitars is the flexibility of the top and braces as a unit. The more flexible they are, the more the guitar will ring. A thick, overbraced solid top will be worse than a thin, lightly-braced laminate top.

However in guitars at under $500-600 price point, the big difference is not in tone, but in playability. They all sound bad at those prices, but some sound a little better and play worse or vice versa.

I will go ahead and recommend some value brands. Seagull, Breedlove Atlas Series, Larrivee (the D-01, L-01, etc.), Tacoma (especially if you just dig that Martin sound).

If you have $500 to spend, I would not hesitate to get a Seagull. I have owned two myself and I have one that is a guitar I will never ever part with. If you have $1000 to spend, I would look at a Larrivee or a Breedlove Atlas, depending on whether you are into a concert-size guitar (get the Breedlove) or a dreadnaught (Larrivee).