Quality Control / Design Improvements / Cost

maguchi said:
^^^Yes that's another angle to the conversation. It's not quality control when the design is intentional. I suppose a 14 frets free of the body semi-hollow or hollowbody is not using or lacking design improvements that have been used by other guitars since the 1950s.

If a player wants or needs a certain sound and look for rockabilly, big band or old school blues gigs, they may prefer something like a Gretsch or Epiphone with only 14 frets free of the body. (Intentionally ommited Gibson to keep my post on topic.)

The Gretsches do sound and play amazing, and their "Players Edition" series make some changes in neck angle that gives a more modern feel to the guitars. However upper fret access is nowhere near what you get with even a Tele. But nothing sounds and looks like a Gretsch. And yes, the looks as well as sound are important for certain gigs. Sometimes you are hired and told that a certain period correct visual is expected for the audience.

View attachment 30664
Click to expand...
Newer MIJ Gretches are the best ones. Vintage are often almost unusable. They have a sound of their own but functional design and ergonomics are not part of the offer. Even Chet had to find an alternative instrument that actually worked. Fortunately these days the MIJ models have fixed the build quality issues of the past. Even the cheap ones work well enough if you primarily need the look for a performance.
 
spawnofthesith said:
Shifting the target of the conversation a bit... I am curious why Strandberg seems to have such atrocious QC (and I'm not talking tooling marks, like serious playability issues). We all know that Cortek Indonesia is capable of producing pretty flawless instruments for half the price of most strandbergs. Does strandberg themselves set the bar that low? I tend to take a lot of internet QC with a pretty heavy grain of salt, but this forum is smaller and overall pretty trustworthy and even here theres been numerous accounts of issues even here. I have more than one IRL friend that's told be not to bother with strandberg because they've had major issues with theres. What gives :idk
Click to expand...
Strandberg managed to ship me a guitar with all these issues:
  • A chunk of wood missing near the nut. It looked like they misaligned a router so there was a perfectly square piece of wood missing.
  • Fretwork so bad that low action was impossible.
  • The quilt maple top was a limited edition feature and it was literally the worst quilt top I've ever seen, with huge splotches of plain maple.
  • The finish from the bridge was flaking off straight from the case.
  • Nut had noticeable tooling marks.
  • There was what looked like a pencil mark near the Strandberg logo, under the finish.
  • Tuners were so still you needed an allen wrench to turn them.
  • The gigbag (at this price? gtfo!) was missing all the tools.
This was at the time a 2400 € guitar. So if we start thinking what happened here:
  1. The guitar factory in South Korea was OK shipping this guitar, and not marking it as a B-stock or anything.
  2. Strandberg in Sweden was OK selling the guitar without checking it at all before sending it to me.
  3. After returning, Strandberg was fine putting it back up for sale as is because the guitar showed up on their website as the only model with the same finish and limited edition right after my return was processed.
That put me off from ever buying Strandberg.

I've played Japanese models that are well made, but IMO the design has fundamental issues that have been solved half-assed. The bridge design sucks for intonation/action adjustment, and the bolt-on heel they changed is still nowhere near as sleek as the one on my Skervesen.
 
Something that’s important in building consistency that is simply not possible at the budget end however good the manufacturing process gets is wood section. A company like Tyler typically rejects most wood. Murphy lab Gibson has the pick of a huge already selected wood store. Same at Fender custom shop. Control of what an instrument will sound like without leaving it to chance requires a high degree of rejection and hidden cost.
Tyler uses only the most perfect quarter sawn maple and subsequently you simply don’t have stability issues and this level of consistency brings a predictable outcome when paired with the body. They also use wood in a very specific and narrow range that means no dead spots and a particular tone acoustically.
This is something that comes at high cost or it is a lottery.
If you know what to look for and have enough experience and examples available you may find something with these things by luck but it’s not common that the best neck wood finds the right body to work to its best.
 
paisleywookiee said:
I truly believe that a significant enough portion of Gibson's fanbase would revolt, if they changed the headstock to something with better string pull angle, reduced the pitch, and added a volute. The average Gibson fan wouldn't be interested. They'd probably even say "I might as well get a PRS McCarty 594, and it won't be like my good old LP". Obviously it's impossible to tell (unless someone's a luthier here) if they made those three changes how dramatically different it would sound/feel.
Click to expand...
I'd say the average person buying a regular Gibson LP Standard is not a stickler for the details of the design. They just want a good LP to play.

The Traditional and Historic lineups can exist for vintage accurate specs for those who crave them, and the regular lineup should be the modernized version less likely to have a neck break.

To me Gibson seems very averse to doing anything that changes their production process. The LP Moderns with sleeker neck joints are built so they can use the same standard neck instead of shaping both the neck and body for a better neck joint. It looks a bit ugly and cheap IMO.
 
laxu said:
Strandberg managed to ship me a guitar with all these issues:
  • A chunk of wood missing near the nut. It looked like they misaligned a router so there was a perfectly square piece of wood missing.
  • Fretwork so bad that low action was impossible.
  • The quilt maple top was a limited edition feature and it was literally the worst quilt top I've ever seen, with huge splotches of plain maple.
  • The finish from the bridge was flaking off straight from the case.
  • Nut had noticeable tooling marks.
  • There was what looked like a pencil mark near the Strandberg logo, under the finish.
  • Tuners were so still you needed an allen wrench to turn them.
  • The gigbag (at this price? gtfo!) was missing all the tools.
This was at the time a 2400 € guitar. So if we start thinking what happened here:
  1. The guitar factory in South Korea was OK shipping this guitar, and not marking it as a B-stock or anything.
  2. Strandberg in Sweden was OK selling the guitar without checking it at all before sending it to me.
  3. After returning, Strandberg was fine putting it back up for sale as is because the guitar showed up on their website as the only model with the same finish and limited edition right after my return was processed.
That put me off from ever buying Strandberg.

I've played Japanese models that are well made, but IMO the design has fundamental issues that have been solved half-assed. The bridge design sucks for intonation/action adjustment, and the bolt-on heel they changed is still nowhere near as sleek as the one on my Skervesen.
Click to expand...
They stopped using the Korean factory for issues like this. The Cort models are vastly improved.
The thing about bridge design that includes tuning is for tone it should be simple and few pieces but function requires the opposite. The Mk2 hantug bridge on Aristides is the best one at the moment. But even this is a pain to intonate.
 
Eagle said:
They stopped using the Korean factory for issues like this. The Cort models are vastly improved.
The thing about bridge design that includes tuning is for tone it should be simple and few pieces but function requires the opposite. The Mk2 hantug bridge on Aristides is the best one at the moment. But even this is a pain to intonate.
Click to expand...
The ABM saddles on my Skervesen work without issue. String height adjustment is just two grub screws instead of Strandberg's imprecise "screw as saddle" design.
 
laxu said:
The ABM saddles on my Skervesen work without issue. String height adjustment is just two grub screws instead of Strandberg's imprecise "screw as saddle" design.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree on that part, it’s the intonation that is most difficult to improve. The mk2 hantug bridge is grub screws (one for hight and one to lock it) .
 
DrewJD82 said:
There’s a lot I’d be willing to overlook, cosmetically, for the right guitar at the right price. Gibson pretty much excludes themselves from this with their pricing and my overall stance is anything above $3000 should be objectionably flawless.

What blows my mind about Gibson is seeing tooling marks on a fingerboard. If all these companies getting guitars built in Indonesia, Korea or even China can bust out guitars without tooling marks on the fingerboards, there’s something amiss there.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The pricier the guitar, the higher my expectation. Gibson is one of the few brands where I've seen some major issues that should have been caught by QA, ones that I feel are unacceptable at their 2000+ € price point.

I think e.g Indonesian guitar factories have raised the bar a lot where they can put out near flawless guitars at a surprisingly low price point. You can argue whether e.g hardware and electronics are top notch, but the construction quality is up there.

Cosmetic issues aren't a big deal, and can be a point to use to negotiate the price lower. But I still don't think you should see them on expensive guitars.
 
When I was a youngling, I had a bit of a thing for Ibanez. Partly it was being left handed, which limited my options a lot. I started on a cheap Chinese made AXL Strat Hendrix copy thing. Then I got a cheapish Ibanez, but when I got my first Les Paul, I immediately became a better guitarist. It just felt RIGHT in my hands.

Since then, I'm something of a Les Paul fan, and tend to go for 24.75 scale guitars as a consequence, with a 12inch radius. Seems to be the thing that my hands like.
 
Oh, and the PRS thing... I've played a PRS SE and I liked the sound of it. I was gonna buy one, and then stupidly I convinced myself that I should get a strat coz of tonal variation.... and I barely play it, don't really like it, but don't want to take a bath on reselling it. Bahhhhhh.
 
One thing people should remember is a guitar costing twice as much isn’t twice as good. The last 20 % can cost twice or more to deliver than the first 50%. It’s about finding the sweet spot for your budget . Cheap is often not value if you are serious and expensive options are often not better from a tone perspective. How many electric guitars sound better than a Telecaster acoustically? The finish used matters but how hard and how thick are the important qualities not nitro or poly. Wood matters too but not what type as long as it does the job and sounds good. Strong,straight and stable for a neck and resonant with no dead spots or too heavy for a body. Incredibly cheap hardware can be very good for tone and longevity. Telecaster bridges sound great because they are steel and machined brass, no crappy powder zinc castings. Simple,low part count and nothing to interfere with the transfer of string energy. Even old kluson tuners are good for tone. Light weight but steel plate and machined parts, just the buttons are subpar.
 
Fender really perfected the bolt-on design. Heck, it was almost perfect out of the gate. What makes that build style so great is the ease in which you can modify, replace parts and maintain for not a ton of cost. If the neck goes kaput, you replace it. If the body breaks, you replace it. That's not simple or cheap to do on a set neck or neck-through design. So from a practicality standpoint, the S and T style guitars are wonderful designs. As Eagle mentioned, what separates the good from great are the details in wood selection and expertise with finishing. Hardware choice and electronics are obviously important too.
 
I think so much of it comes down to the raw dimensions of everything. How it feels in your hands.

I've tried many tele's. They all feel like toothpicks to me, I hate everything about the way that they feel when I hold them. From cheap ones to expensive custom shop ones. Ughhh. No thanks.

I did have an Ibanez RG721 around 2017-2018, and it had the same playability issues that my original cheaper Ibanez did. Uncomfortable flat necks that were so uninspiring to play.

The PRS SE series that I've played, they were all very playable and very comfortable and immediately my hands took to the necks, the radius, the edges of the fretboard, all of that.

For me, it all starts with the dimensions and the physical form.
 
Orvillain said:
I think so much of it comes down to the raw dimensions of everything. How it feels in your hands.

I've tried many tele's. They all feel like toothpicks to me, I hate everything about the way that they feel when I hold them. From cheap ones to expensive custom shop ones. Ughhh. No thanks.

I did have an Ibanez RG721 around 2017-2018, and it had the same playability issues that my original cheaper Ibanez did. Uncomfortable flat necks that were so uninspiring to play.

The PRS SE series that I've played, they were all very playable and very comfortable and immediately my hands took to the necks, the radius, the edges of the fretboard, all of that.

For me, it all starts with the dimensions and the physical form.
Click to expand...
I agree but I find many people who can’t get past what they have now. If it’s different they write it off as not for them. I find you need to own something to try it and play it exclusively for at least a month to get past the unfamiliarity. The more different the more this time matters. There are a few examples of where great players made Gibson to Fender favourite switches.
 
Orvillain said:
When I was a youngling, I had a bit of a thing for Ibanez. Partly it was being left handed, which limited my options a lot. I started on a cheap Chinese made AXL Strat Hendrix copy thing. Then I got a cheapish Ibanez, but when I got my first Les Paul, I immediately became a better guitarist. It just felt RIGHT in my hands.

Since then, I'm something of a Les Paul fan, and tend to go for 24.75 scale guitars as a consequence, with a 12inch radius. Seems to be the thing that my hands like.
Click to expand...

It's basically what happened to me back in 1992 when I've bought my first Gibson (an SG).
Not that I had a big experience on different guitar brands & shapes at the time but the SG just felt right immediately. Loved the feel, the scale, the fixed bridge, the controls layout.
 
@Eagle I think after a while most people just don't need to move on from what they have. Guitarists, drummers, bassists, and even piano players, tend to dial into a narrow set of ideal preferences the longer they play.

Synth freaks are ... well.. freaks.

Back to guitars.... I had a Taylor 810. I could play it well enough. Felt fine. But sounded shite. Well... no, not shite. But it was bright and modern sounding. I sold it and got a Gibson J45, and that sounds lovely! It has all the warmth and dark character that I look for, from an acoustic.
 
Orvillain said:
@Eagle I think after a while most people just don't need to move on from what they have. Guitarists, drummers, bassists, and even piano players, tend to dial into a narrow set of ideal preferences the longer they play.

Synth freaks are ... well.. freaks.

Back to guitars.... I had a Taylor 810. I could play it well enough. Felt fine. But sounded shite. Well... no, not shite. But it was bright and modern sounding. I sold it and got a Gibson J45, and that sounds lovely! It has all the warmth and dark character that I look for, from an acoustic.
Click to expand...
Yes I am sure you are right. I often forgot because half of my regular customers have over 100 instruments each or like to cover all bases in their studio. One guy is up at around 350 and yes he plays all of them.
 
I also wanted to add -- manufacturing a bolt-on vs. set neck should make general QC more efficient and consistent, because of the nature of the assembly process. A lot more logistics and cost involved getting an LP style guitar completed.
 
Eagle said:
Yes I am sure you are right. I often forgot because half of my regular customers have over 100 instruments each or like to cover all bases in their studio. One guy is up at around 350 and yes he plays all of them.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that Yngwie is one of your customers. 🤣
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top