The subject of this thread is to suggest that it would be useful to have an objective system to evaluate and describe guitars. My experience with my first professional guitar was less than satisfactory in part because I didn’t understand the types of sound qualities out there and that comparing a Fender Mustang to a Hamer Artist Korina P-90 is like comparing Granny Smith apples to Nathan’s Frankfurters. But more importantly it was problematical because there are no objective criteria to determine guitar quality. It’s true, that some instruments just sound better, but among the better sounding ones how does one choose. We all get biased by our own rhetoric and our belief that we got a good deal. When I was trying to figure out what guitar to buy, I started checking various forums, the Hamer fan club being one of them. But I also scanned the Fender forum, the Gibson forum, the Les Paul forum, Harmony Central user forum, and guitar.net. I checked review sites such as Wholenote, harmony central (again), Guitar Gearheads, ultimate guitar, guitar review archive, even Epinions. I went to my local music stores, including Daddy’s junky music, the guitar center, and a local store called Daren’s (where I finally bought my guitar). Each Salesperson, floor associate, resource person, consultant (whatever you would prefer to call them), and forum member had a different bias. All were pretty adamant about their advice. The owner of Daren’s felt that for the money I was willing to spend I would get the most bang for my buck with a Hamer. The 18 year old expert at the Guitar Center having played for 4 years said there is nothing like a Gibson, but that the $800 used Artist Korina (2003) natural finish with “soap bars” was an okay guitar (If I had know then what I know now…). He did try to push a Gibson Les Paul on me. The guitar "expert" at Daddy’s Junky Music thought I would be happiest with a Fender Strat... he thought Gibson was overpriced, PRS too exotic and everybody plays Fender. He didn’t know much about Hamers but said they had a great reputation. I went with the advice of my local Music Store. No one could give me (nor did they even try) any advice based solely on objective “playing” characteristics of the guitar. Although I was told that dovetailed neck to body attachments are superior to bolt on necks. Since buying my Hamer I have found 3 sites that question this notion (excluding Ed Roman's site). Where is the scientifically obtained data to show which is better? Does such data exist? And if it does shouldn’t this be part of the technical specs of each instrument? Review sites are also incredibly poor at giving objective evaluations. For example if you go to, a particular review sites you can actually get a user review of a Squier Strat rated with 5 stars (on a 5 star scale), and in another review on the same site get a review of a Gibson Les Paul classic with a rating of 4.5. I appreciate that the person rating the Squier is comparing it to the guitars he’s play and the person rating the Gibson is comparing that guitar to a different class of guitar. I’m NOT proposing that there be a universal 5 or 10 point rating system based on the opinion of the player (these always have a subjective component) But rather a “description” based on the objective measurable qualities of the instrument.. This would require real scientific research. Perhaps this has already been done. For example, instead of reading in a review that the action of a particular guitar is very low, or “is as smooth as silk”, or “plays like butter” (is that “real butter” or “I can’t believe its not butter”) wouldn’t it be better to read that it takes 6 oz of pressure (I pulled this number out of a hat, I haven’t a clue how much pressure is needed) to push the first string to the fret bar at the first fret and 5 oz at the 10th fret. The research could also find out the pressure below which guitar players associate with the experience of an easy action. This could be reported for each guitar as action-pressure for each string at standardized frets. This could be compared across the board for every guitar. Maybe the Squier Strat does have an easier action than the Gibson Les Paul. We would know, it would be beyond opinion. In another example, sustain could be quantified with real numbers. So instead of a reviewer reporting that this instrument has a great sustain. He might report there is 12 second sustain for the Low E string and a 9 second sustain for the B string. The “sustain” quality might be quantified using (a yet to be invented standard string plucker) that applies a standardized pluck. The time during which the sound is sustained until at drops below some standardized volume (for example 2 Db amplitude) could be measured. This test could be standardized for each string at open, 5th, and the 12th fret. Instruments with longer sustains might turn out to be more desirable, or the research might find that there is an optimum sustain (perhaps if the sustain is too long it interferes with the next note). There are any number of characteristics that can be objectively measured and compared to what “experienced” (this excludes me) guitarist’s think of each instrument. Let me anticipate the number one objection. That would be “How one feels about a particular guitar (or bass) is subjective. That is true. But in comparing instruments it may turn out that some of our subjectivity is hype (maybe even self applied) and after we learn about the true characteristics of some guitars, the price we pay for each instrument may normalize. Maybe a Gibson Les Paul Supreme is no better than an Epiphone Les Paul or (and I can hear the moans) maybe a $6000 Artist ultimate is no better than a $2000 Monaco Elite. If the difference cannot be quantified are you still willing to pay thousands of dollars more? The most important objection is who pays for the research? It can’t be the guitar companies, they’re biased. What if you find out that your guitar is inferior; you certainly wouldn’t publish your results. There is no supervising organization or code of ethics that any tester is required to answer to. You could just lie and make your instrument (at least on paper) sound invincible. I’m sure the guitar dealers cannot afford to pay for it. I’ve heard that the entire annual budget for the entire music equipment industry is not even as much as the first quarter income for Wal-Mart. And Namm probably doesn’t want to piss off any of its most important members which include the guitar manufacturers. So we’re left with subjective evaluations, word of mouth, sound bites, etc. Does anyone have any thoughts about the above? Jeff
