What is good? Is “ the best” better or just different?

[Eagle]

Ok but there is definitely a threshold we’re obviously objectively better gets vague when compared with something different but still very definitely good. Only at this point does opinion come in to play. Lots of things that people claim to be subjective actually aren’t unless you are being contrary.

 

[Gothi]

Just fell over this. In such debates I have often read that “the player is more important that the gear” or “a skilled person with low end gear can make better music than an unskilled with hight end”. Yeah, sure, but try to give the skilled the high end gear and the unskilled the low end. Now it should be pretty obvious that there is a significant difference to gear that matters.

 

[Eagle]

Just fell over this. In such debates I have often read that “the player is more important that the gear” or “a skilled person with low end gear can make better music than an unskilled with hight end”. Yeah, sure, but try to give the skilled the high end gear and the unskilled the low end. Now it should be pretty obvious that there is a significant difference to gear that matters.

most modern stuff plays ok high or low. Tone less so.

 

[MadAsAHatter]

Just fell over this. In such debates I have often read that “the player is more important that the gear” or “a skilled person with low end gear can make better music than an unskilled with hight end”. Yeah, sure, but try to give the skilled the high end gear and the unskilled the low end. Now it should be pretty obvious that there is a significant difference to gear that matters.

What happens when you give an average player average gear?

 

[Warmart]

What happens when you give an average player average gear?

Averagity?

 

[Gothi]

What happens when you give an average player average gear?

Tribe of Hofund happens.

 

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

I own guitars/pedals and an amp that could be considered goldielocks, or at least close…but what distinguises them is blurry in my mind.

Take the 2 es175s…its dead obvious the vintage one is better when you play them. At the same time im not confident it translates into a better sound at a performance. I hope it does…maybe it does soemthing on an insperational/enjoyment level, but as soon as the mark “good” as been reached…it gets fuzzy.

 

[newholland]

Ok but there is definitely a threshold we’re obviously objectively better gets vague when compared with something different but still very definitely good. Only at this point does opinion come in to play. Lots of things that people claim to be subjective actually aren’t unless you are being contrary.

i mean, id rather use an evm over a peavey scorpion, or a carmen ghia over a line 6 combo: the chosen stuff sounds and feels better and functions better musically because... well... it was likely engineered well beyond a pricepoint, and bean counters weren't involved to the same degree.

that said- im only referring to 'best' and im utterly unsure that beyond 'better' there is best out of context. ive played really absord expensive stuff and utterly hated it. i think bad cat amps are quite literally horrid sounding. i hate celestion blues. i think dumbles are so not my bag as to be absurd. wrong tools for the job. dont ask me about v30s in any application. theyre all great tools for someone, and possibly best.

they sound fine in contexts not my own, and other people make them sound glorious, full range perfection. they make me sound anemic and broken. maybe thats my issue () but i think that speaks to them being the right or wrong tool for the job- much less than its subjective. objectively, i CAN drive nails with a rock, a can of beans, or even a drill. but its more effective with a hammer, and if given the choice for thousands of them, i'll choose a milled face 20oz douglas straight claw.

i do think, however, what you're saying though is important- and that the only way to find BEST for any individual player is to have an actual sonic priority list and a lot of guitarists are super nebulous on that other than 'i want punchy full loud mojo filled vintage cred inducing blah blah blah'... i.e. no idea other than everybody will bow before it due to reputation. but good players develop those priorities and seek them and can talk about it. the difference is discernment and the language to talk about it, which is what you do.

not being contrary intentionally- nor disagreeing- just saying that 'best' requires an extended conversation musically, great ears, and a tonal language that arent everyones world. i absolutely agree that magnificent in context exists!

 

[banned]

I will start by saying that good and better start out being easily discernible and not really a matter of opinion but when you get up to excellence and the idea of “best” it gets difficult.
Particularly these days when better manufacturing has dramatically improved the cheaper and middle of the market.
Digital has substantially reduced the cost and difficulty of making “good” tone.
But if I sat you down in a studio with “ holy grail “ gear I assure you the difference is night and day.
The fact that most of us never experience any of this means over time people loose connection with how good it can be and persuade themselves that good is in fact “ best “. Dismissing the truly great as “ hype” without any real experience of it citing that it is “a matter of opinion “, it mostly isn’t , and by experience I mean playing through it yourself.
On record you can’t tell so does it matter?
This is a fair question and one that you can only answer yourself.
Let’s be honest Larry Carlton playing his garbage Sire through a good amp will still sound good but how much better can it get?
I would say to people that the difference is like hifi. Spend £3k and you get something very good but spend £15k on the right things and the difference is hard to describe but incredible to experience.
I’m not saying the £3k system is bad it is actually going to be very good.
My personal perspective is I want to find the “best” gear. This is what my customers pay me to help them with.
This video is an example of what I am talking about.

That video always gets me...that amp...what a sound!

Just stunning. Wish I could buy that unit!

 

[woody]

That video always gets me...that amp...what a sound!

Just stunning. Wish I could buy that unit!

This video always gets me too.
The delay with that 5th up pitch shifting from minute 12-ish on.
It's just so plain bad.
Peer pressure and expectation bias.

 

[MadMaxG79]

I'm of the firm belief that whatever I perceive as being good or better translates into a better performance from me, be that live, just jamming with the band or in a recording. And I don't believe that gear, that is more or less objectively branded as "the best", is necessarily the best gear for me personally or that it will necessarily translate into a better performance from me. I guess what I'm saying is that as is the case with so many things in life, taste is subjective and that goes for gear and sounds as well.
There are so many examples of records that have been recorded with shit to average gear, at least from the guitarist's perspective, but have still sounded great and been hugely successful. Something like Nirvana comes to mind.
Maybe there is no objectively speaking, overall "best" gear, but just "best" for a given situation, player or sound?

 

[TSJMajesty]

Maybe there is no objectively speaking, overall "best" gear, but just "best" for a given situation, player or sound?

"Best" in terms of what, is what comes to mind, when that term is used.

"Man that guitar has the best action!"
"Yeah? Try playing slide on it."

 

[la szum]

"Best" in terms of what, is what comes to mind, when that term is used.

"Man that guitar has the best action!"
"Yeah? Try playing slide on it."

Truth!

Impossible to define "best" without also stating what the actual user context is first.

Maybe I am dumber than I used to be, but the older I become the less I believe in best
and the more I believe in fit.

Best is like an ideal that is not an ideal fit for everyone.