To more differentiate the higher number models from the o3s. They are not against this generally as my 40th Ann. has slightly thinner upper half of the x-brace, and the git JCL made for Tommy Emmanuel had slight changes -- not sure what. Also I've read people report some earlier versions had rounded x-braces.
Same basic bracing system of the Larrivee sound which works, just some minor change like rounding the edge off the x or thinning sections like my 40th. Perhaps a Limited line. Bone nuts and saddles would be good too.
Hope this stays civil. :ph34r: :donut :donut2 :donut2 :coffee :coffee
You know, I agree (though I don't have the knowledge to speculate on how to make changes) that the most common complaint I've read from the Larrivee public is that of being overbuilt. So by changing the bracing, that issue is being addressed, right? If so, I think it would be a great idea for a limited run high end guitar. I would never buy one because of money, but I'd be very interested to read all of your impressions if JCL were to invest a little in that direction. (And I think we can pull this discussion off without getting too defensive of JCL's current offerings. Well, I only half think that...)
Doesn't the overbuilt thing come mostly from people who try to sell modifications, or from those who like to tinker?
I can see that high end models could have some more time invested in shaping braces. But there was already a substantial difference in tone between my LV03RE and my LV09. Do a proper AB test and you will hear it for sure.
I wonder if the problem is less about bracing and more about the myth that 03 and 09 are the same except for bling.
Quote from: frankhond on April 14, 2011, 10:48:03 AM
I wonder if the problem is less about bracing and more about the myth that 03 and 09 are the same except for bling.
Why do you say that is a myth? Could you expound upon the objective diffrenences between the model 03's and the 05's and 09's? I am curious as to what structural differences there are between the various Larrivee lines.
Except for the 50, 60, and 70 series, and the LSV-11 model (and maybe a few others here and there that made in special runs), the Larrivee's have the same structural build. The higher end standard models presumeable use cosmetiaclly higher grade wods for the back and sides, and a higher grade top wood too, although I'm not sure how spruce is graded and whether or not higher grades of spruce are supposed to yield better sound.
But the main difference between the higher end and lower end instruments is the the finish. There are lots of arguments about whether the gloss is really thicker than the satin finish, but JCL satated at one point that the gloss finihs is thicker. He also stated in the same interview (I'm sorry I don;t have a url to that interview, but I am sure someone does) that he thought that the satin finish guitars may sound more responsive new than the gloss models, but because of the premium woods, he felt that the gloss models would mature into better sounding instruments.
There are arguments on every side of this issue. My personal experience is anecdotal, so completely dismissable, but I have found 09's that have a certain luchness to them that the satin models seem to lack. But I have also played a number of brand new 09's that sounded rather dead in the water and I haven't come across any stain models that had that problem.
The Larrivee's are overbuilt, as are many factory guitars, presumably to reduce the number of warranty repairs.
Quote from: frankhond on April 14, 2011, 10:48:03 AM
Doesn't the overbuilt thing come mostly from people who try to sell modifications, or from those who like to tinker?
No, they come from the factory like that. They are overbuilt relative to other well known guitar builders' work. Lighter built guitars are not part of some fringe movement. Check out almost any guitar that was built outside of mass production(including those built before mass production).
Personally, I don't think Larrivee necessarily
should make lighter built guitars. I mean, there are so many other guitar builders wanting to build the guitar of your dreams, who are already making lighter guitars. I can go buy a killer Huss & Dalton today; why should I wait around wishing Larrivee would build a better guitar.
My 9 year old DV09 custom has had some mods done to the usual suspects (bones, tuners frets) but is balanced the way I want it and gives me the versatility I needed for my style of play. Say what you will but if you could play it and an 03/2/or 1, it would be like comparing an entry level guitar to a pro instrument, so I do agree with JCL the upper end does have a distinctively better sound to me than the others, and the look and feel isn't so much toyish to me. Of course if I actually brought myself to buy an 03 I might feel different but in comparing it just isn't there. Of course if part of a collection I could see how it would be much cheaper with multiple models, play what your ears and hands love and buy what makes it for yo.
Maybe critics should build their own guitars and let Mr. Larrivée run his highly successful company his way. :smile:
Quoting jeremy which is something I never thought I would but he's right "Personally, I don't think Larrivee necessarily should make lighter built guitars. I mean, there are so many other guitar builders wanting to build the guitar of your dreams, who are already making lighter guitars. I can go buy a killer Huss & Dalton today; why should I wait around wishing Larrivee would build a better guitar."
:+1: for the duckster.
But if what you want to do is change the shape of the brace's have at it, just be carefull.I would advise not to use a knife as I have seen way too many stab wounds in my lifetime,so far.
Quote from: hadden on April 14, 2011, 07:54:46 AM
To more differentiate the higher number models from the o3s. They are not against this generally as my 40th Ann. has slightly thinner upper half of the x-brace, and the git JCL made for Tommy Emmanuel had slight changes -- not sure what. Also I've read people report some earlier versions had rounded x-braces.
Same basic bracing system of the Larrivee sound which works, just some minor change like rounding the edge off the x or thinning sections like my 40th. Perhaps a Limited line. Bone nuts and saddles would be good too.
Hope this stays civil. :ph34r: :donut :donut2 :donut2 :coffee :coffee
This is an interesting notion. MY L-09 is superb, doesn't have the JCL braces, my tech who generally finds Larrivee's overbuilt and 'young' sounding, is ga-ga over it, finding it quite the best Larrivee he ever heard and rivaling any of the Martin's,etc. he does warranty work for - and I have never heard a JCL in real life. The value added might help sales, if they can keep the price reasonable. Don't know if people would go for a higher priced tweaked out -05, -09, -10.
I think Jean's philosophy is to build for the long haul, while super-light guitars aren't likely to last as long. And it was the sound of mine that sold me when I knew little about Larrivee guitars. I chose it over Martin, SCGC, Collings, and Goodall.
PS I do prefer the glossy models. I haven't played any satin's that struck me the same, though I do like my 00 a lot - but I often wish it were glossed. :rolleye:
Quote from: hadden on April 14, 2011, 07:54:46 AM
To more differentiate the higher number models from the o3s. They are not against this generally as my 40th Ann. has slightly thinner upper half of the x-brace, and the git JCL made for Tommy Emmanuel had slight changes -- not sure what. Also I've read people report some earlier versions had rounded x-braces.
Same basic bracing system of the Larrivee sound which works, just some minor change like rounding the edge off the x or thinning sections like my 40th. Perhaps a Limited line. Bone nuts and saddles would be good too.
Hope this stays civil. :ph34r: :donut :donut2 :donut2 :coffee :coffee
Well, it stayed civil for a little longer than I thought it would.
I would line up behind those who might like to see bone back on the upper end models. I do not think it is going out on a limb to say most owners prefer the tone and longevity of bone over Tusq. Also the beveled pickguards (maybe just included in the case for those who prefer none) and Waverly tuners stock. The wood binding is something I appreciate on Larrivee's and consider this to be something better than the plastic some of the competitors use. I agree with those who charge Larrys with being overbuilt. But to be fair after you have played one for a year or two they open up and sound far better (to my ear) than when new and you can string them with mediums without running for a neck reset in a short time.
As for requiring critics to build their own guitars-I dunno. I think constructive criticism is not an oxymoron. For the price of the upper end Larrivee's I believe the above changes are reasonable. I sense that you may have started this thread with some apprehension. I don't read any disrespect in it but given that anything other than blind worship of everything done in Vancouver or Oxnard is seen as heresy by some I can understand your concerns about civility.
When I picked up my JCL 4oth at Oxnard a few years ago, JCL told me they had hand shaped (don't know if that means thinner) bracing than all other Larrivees. He also said it had a maple bridgeplate. The JCL has a richer, more complex and refined sound than any Larrivee I have played. Some may call it "mature". It is my favorite guitar, and to my ears, it sounds like many of the hand made boutique makers, that all cost many thousands more.
I also have played D03R models that, to my ear at least, do not sound quite as rich as my D10 Rosewood. I am sure the bracing in those 2 models are the same, but the D10 is superior. So to answer the OP, some high end Larrivees do have different bracing. You just have to find one of the 80 JCL 40th Anniversary models that someone will part with. That is a tall order.....most of us will never sell them since they are phenomenal guitars.
Quote from: Flake on April 14, 2011, 06:54:39 PM
Well, it stayed civil for a little longer than I thought it would.
I would line up behind those who might like to see bone back on the upper end models. I do not think it is going out on a limb to say most owners prefer the tone and longevity of bone over Tusq. Also the beveled pickguards (maybe just included in the case for those who prefer none) and Waverly tuners stock. The wood binding is something I appreciate on Larrivee's and consider this to be something better than the plastic some of the competitors use. I agree with those who charge Larrys with being overbuilt. But to be fair after you have played one for a year or two they open up and sound far better (to my ear) than when new and you can string them with mediums without running for a neck reset in a short time.
As for requiring critics to build their own guitars-I dunno. I think constructive criticism is not an oxymoron. For the price of the upper end Larrivee's I believe the above changes are reasonable. I sense that you may have started this thread with some apprehension. I don't read any disrespect in it but given that anything other than blind worship of everything done in Vancouver or Oxnard is seen as heresy by some I can understand your concerns about civility.
:+1: There are those that don't tow the corporate line quite as hardcore as others.
I love my C09. Are there aspects of it I would like to be different? Sure.
If constructive criticism isn't allowed, list it in the forum rules.
Criticism is a wonderful thing and its always welcome by me at least.But they build what they build to get the sound and feel that they hope others will enjoy.Would anyone suggest to Martin that there guitars are over bassy sounding and if they changed the bracing to correct this they'd sell more.Or maybe Taylor could build there guitars with less midrange.How about Gibson maybe we should talk to them into build there guitars so you didn't have to play 50 to get one good one and so on and so on and so on.
Quote from: unclrob on April 14, 2011, 11:13:46 PM
Criticism is a wonderful thing and its always welcome by me at least.But they build what they build to get the sound and feel that they hope others will enjoy.Would anyone suggest to Martin that there guitars are over bassy sounding and if they changed the bracing to correct this they'd sell more.Or maybe Taylor could build there guitars with less midrange.How about Gibson maybe we should talk to them into build there guitars so you didn't have to play 50 to get one good one and so on and so on and so on.
:+1: , Rob
By whose expertise is it a given fact that a "lighter" built guitar or one with a certain profile of braces is automatically better than another design? I imagine most high-end player-oriented guitars are built the way they are with sound, tone, volume, and playability as the primary objective.
Kurt
To be a little frank, I have to get say I get a little annoyed by the "larrivee's are overbraced" comments – and here's why:
Every guitar maker faces a dilemma in the design of bracing – Strength, or Tone. One of the key ways that the tone of an acoustic guitar can be "altered" (Notice that I didn't say improved) is by thinning out the woods (back/sides/top/braces), but this comes at a price. Reducing the thickness of wood increases the instruments susceptibility to structural changes due to string tension, impact damage, and worst of all climatic damage. Often times the differences in tones between two different manufacturers comes down to which way they have leaned in the strength-tone dilemma.
I don't believe our guitars to be over or under built – I find them to be a perfect balance of tone and strength. This was my father's intention, and an important lesson that both my brother and I have carefully learned.
I've been reading these online discussions as far back as RMMGA – and as I recall the "over-braced" comment came from someone who was selling brace shaving services (not just on Larrivee Guitars). Then as the internet goes someone read it and repeated it, then someone else repeated it, and so forth. The seller, in my opinion, was an uneducated "luthier" who looked at our bracing and saw that it didn't look like a martin and thus thought it was overbraced – not thinking that parabolic bracing was an intentional design. Often times these types of claims are made by people who have not even built a guitar, or maybe built one or two (and somehow they know better than someone who has built over 100,000 instruments).
Altering the bracing on a Larrivee simply makes the guitar sound less like a Larrivee and less like Jean intended. The JCL guitar that we made in 2007 did not have "thinner" bracing – It was simply an exact replica of the bracing we did in the 1970's. In fact several of the braces are THICKER on the JCL. The bridge plate (directly under the bridge) is thicker and larger than other guitars from the 2007 era. The X-brace is rounder around the sound hole, but that doesn't necessarily make it better – it was replicated because that is the way the original was done – it's just different. More likely, the tone difference noted on the JCL's is a result of the soundboards from Jean's stash – They were master grade soundboards for a reason.
Matt.
Thanks Matt. Great and definitive answer. Proves that Larrivee guitars are what they are because you make them that way! Thank you!
Always great to hear from a Larrivee! :nana_guitar You won't find me complaining about the bracing or weight on any of my Larrivees. And since I play mediums, I like knowing they will all hold up well.
Quote from: cke on April 15, 2011, 12:19:30 AM
Thanks Matt. Great and definitive answer. Proves that Larrivee guitars are what they are because you make them that way! Thank you!
Ditto from me. (That was the point I was trying to make in my last post).
I can tell you one thing for sure. My 1982-83 L-07 is one of the best sounding guitars I have ever heard. And in spite of it being almost 30 years old, it is in exactly the same shape in terms of neck angle, flatness of the top, relief (without the benefit of a truss rod), bridge height, etc. etc. as it was when I bought it in 1985. Yet, until I became educated enough to look after it properly in the last few years, it was subjected to extremely low humidities during many very dry prairie winters; being
way too close to roaring campfires followed by leaning against trees outside overnight; spending time in hot car's and that kind of general abuse :whistling:
So I am very thankful it is built the way it is whether one cares to call it "overbuilt" or not.
Kurt
I like Larrivee guitars for their voicing and their strength. The bracing is relatively heavy, which does reduce bass and volume, but it actually enhances treble and sustain IMO.
However, I agree that Larrivee needs to do more to distinguish their high-end from their low-end offerings. Martin, for example, offers lighter builds at a higher price, and I assume that's partly because they expect more warranty work. But let the buyer decide -- a lot of high-end builders will frankly tell you that their more-expensive more-responsive guitars will self-destruct faster than a factory guitar.
My main point/question was ways to differentiate the series, even if it's presumptuous and isn't going to happen. These types of discussions inevitably deteriorate, I guess. You can certainly change the bracing slightly so the guitar still sounds like a Larrivee, only more so, if you know what I mean. They have done it themselves, when I looked inside my L-03. I don't see what the big deal is: lots of manufacturers have slightly different bracing between models that still keeps the integrity of the family sound. Not exactly sacrilege.
Quote from: hadden on April 15, 2011, 08:05:29 AM
You can certainly change the bracing slightly so the guitar still sounds like a Larrivee, only more so, if you know what I mean. They have done it themselves, when I looked inside my L-03. I don't see what the big deal is: lots of manufacturers have slightly different bracing between models that still keeps the integrity of the family sound. Not exactly sacrilege.
Sounds like they are quite happy the way they build their guitars. I buy other brands when I want something other than a Larrivee...
Quote from: 247hoopsfan on April 14, 2011, 06:55:04 PM
When I picked up my JCL 4oth at Oxnard a few years ago, JCL told me they had hand shaped (don't know if that means thinner) bracing ...
... So to answer the OP, some high end Larrivees do have different bracing. You just have to find one of the 80 JCL 40th Anniversary models that someone will part with. That is a tall order.....most of us will never sell them since they are phenomenal guitars.
I know that the style of bracing has been a topic of discussion from time to time, but just like 247hf has said, the 40th Anniversary guitar is a treasure and most folks who own one will tell you that it has something special. Therefore, given that this instrument was marketed as a replica of his early work with "modified bracing", I often wonder why they don't just use this pattern on all of the L series. It certainly won't have any effect on pricing and you don't hear any complaints about how this one was produced.
Given the high satisfaction of the owners of the replica, is it possible that this is a superior style of bracing? I'm just asking...
I think you got your answer directly from the source.They build what they build.I a happy owner.I also must admit then that I like overbuilt tanks as I also like Guilds.
Quote from: gitnoob on April 15, 2011, 12:44:57 AM
However, I agree that Larrivee needs to do more to distinguish their high-end from their low-end offerings. Martin, for example, offers lighter builds at a higher price, and I assume that's partly because they expect more warranty work. But let the buyer decide -- a lot of high-end builders will frankly tell you that their more-expensive more-responsive guitars will self-destruct faster than a factory guitar.
I believe they already do....and I think Matthew came right out and said it.....the reason that the JCLs sound so good is a result of the "mastergrade" soundboard wood used....with no loss of durability due to lighter construction. Like the mastergrade woods used on their higher models. I think that also answers the question...is the higher grade wood just for bling, or for sound. They have a tap tone for a reason.....of course, this is JMO.
Quote from: jimmy buffett on April 15, 2011, 08:50:56 AM
I know that the style of bracing has been a topic of discussion from time to time, but just like 247hf has said, the 40th Anniversary guitar is a treasure and most folks who own one will tell you that it has something special. Therefore, given that this instrument was marketed as a replica of his early work with "modified bracing", I often wonder why they don't just use this pattern on all of the L series. It certainly won't have any effect on pricing and you don't hear any complaints about how this one was produced.
Given the high satisfaction of the owners of the replica, is it possible that this is a superior style of bracing? I'm just asking...
Matthew stated that the bracing on the JCL reissue is the same as the other L bodies that they build.
Some people consider Morgan, Northwood, and Webber to be like "a Larrivee on steroids."
Maybe that could be their high-end strategy. Hand-voiced by a luthier, slightly different bracing, but with the better-known Larrivee brand and wider distribution.
Quote from: unclrob on April 14, 2011, 11:13:46 PM
Criticism is a wonderful thing and its always welcome by me at least.But they build what they build to get the sound and feel that they hope others will enjoy.Would anyone suggest to Martin that there guitars are over bassy sounding and if they changed the bracing to correct this they'd sell more.Or maybe Taylor could build there guitars with less midrange.How about Gibson maybe we should talk to them into build there guitars so you didn't have to play 50 to get one good one and so on and so on and so on.
You bet folks make suggestions to builders, based on their experience, on what they think might be an improvement. As long as it is honest, and based on SOME kind of knowledge, it is a great thing. Look what it did in this thread: Matthew Larrivee came on and stated their aspect/view of the topics under discussion. It was a great response that directly addressed what we were talking about.
To me, that's about as healthy as communication can get.
I think you want to be careful about rhetoric like this.
Enhancing the higher level models is not as economically attractive as making the lower end models cheaper. Not sure how much more Larrivee could get for their upper end models. But the 03s, etc. are a tremendous value. Why not just make them out of formica or something like Martin? Or have a cheap line made overseas like Gibson did with Epiphone?
Then you could charge a premium for a Custom Shop line made to specification or just named after a famous player and over-priced like Fender does.
Sometimes you just want to let sleeping dogs lie ...
Ultimately, I do agree that more should probably be done to differentiate between the -03 and the -10.
What that differentiation should be remains a point of contention for everyone from the player, to the dealer, and to the maker. Nobody likes change though – and if we were (for hypothetical example) change away from mahogany and rosewood on the -03's then everyone would be in an uproar. Dealers also do not like change because it instantly ages their inventory of instruments.
We do have some game altering changes that we may be making to the high end guitars in the next five years that will definitely add to the differentiation between satin and gloss – and they will not be just cosmetic changes.
It is interesting to me that Martin and Taylor use many different bracing patterens. X, forward shifted X, A bracing, CV bracing etc. Perhaps Larrivee puts it's best bracing in all it's offerings
I own one of those 50 series guitars from the '90s with a slightly different structure and somewhat different sound from the D-03R and L-03RE I owned before. It actually sounds remarkably like the Santa Cruz Tony Rice model (might have cost about what a Santa Cruz cost when both were new, but a whole lot less than even a used Cruz today) but you wouldn't hear me complain if it sounded just like the D-03R. I doubt it's as light as some Santa Cruz entries, but it seems really sound structurally after more than 15 years. As Matthew points out, strength is also a factor, although I happen to be one who doesn't see the Larrivee sound as a compromise. It's not the same as a Martin, Taylor or Gibson, but if I wanted a Martin, Taylor or Gibson I wouldn't have bought a Larrivee (four, actually).
I appreciate Matthew's frankness regarding the similarities among high and "low" models. But if the worst thing you can say about a brand is that its high end is only significantly less expensive than its rivals--as compared to its "low" end, which is dramatically lower in price than competitors of similar quality, that's not too bad.
I'll look forward to the changes, though.
Quote from: Matthew Larrivee on April 15, 2011, 12:07:47 AM
I don't believe our guitars to be over or under built
Neither does any other builder believe that about their guitars but Larrivees are built heavier than those from many well established builders. It's just a measurable fact and whether someone thinks that is a good or bad thing is a different subject.
Quote from: gitnoob on April 15, 2011, 12:44:57 AM
a lot of high-end builders will frankly tell you that their more-expensive more-responsive guitars will self-destruct faster than a factory guitar.
Got anything to back that up?
Quote from: jeremy3220 on April 16, 2011, 01:07:59 AMGot anything to back that up?
You mean like my lightly-built Martin 0-16NY with the rotated bridge? Or do you prefer an appeal to authority? :)
http://www.esomogyi.com/handmade.html
These guitars can therefore deliberately be made more delicate and fragile -- and this makes possible a louder, more responsive instrument. The factory cannot afford to make fragile, maximally responsive instruments: for every increment of fragility a certain predictable number of damages and structural failures can be predicted, and the maker would sink under the weight of warranty work.
Quote from: gitnoob on April 16, 2011, 01:31:48 AM
You mean like my lightly-built Martin 0-16NY with the rotated bridge?
There's no question lighter guitars are more delicate, it doesn't mean they are
self destucting at a faster rate. They also will need neck resets sooner but that doesn't mean they were destroyed (synonym for destruct). I think maybe the "self destruct" terminology was a bit too strong. I doubt I'll live remotely long enough to see my SCGC or Larrivee literally 'self destruct'.
Quote from: gitnoob on April 16, 2011, 01:31:48 AM
Or do you prefer an appeal to authority? :)
I hope that was light hearted since you pitched it ("high-end builders will frankly tell you...")
Quote from: jeremy3220 on April 16, 2011, 02:02:13 AM
There's no question lighter guitars are more delicate, it doesn't mean they are self destucting at a faster rate. They also will need neck resets sooner but that doesn't mean they were destroyed (synonym for destruct). I think maybe the "self destruct" terminology was a bit too strong. I doubt I'll live remotely long enough to see my SCGC or Larrivee literally 'self destruct'.
Yes, perhaps too strong. By "self-destruct" I really meant deform to the point where it needs warranty repair work, and that's obviously what factory builders want to avoid. A neck reset is simply a work-around for structural deformation, and I think Larrivee is on record as stating that neck resets are fairly uncommon for their guitars.
Like I said, I think it makes sense for the builder to let the player decide on that trade-off between structural robustness and tone (for a premium price).
Quote from: Mr_LV19E on April 15, 2011, 10:21:09 AM
Matthew stated that the bracing on the JCL reissue is the same as the other L bodies that they build.
Then he should talk to his marketing guys, as the description on the 12th Fret web site states
"The combination of a slightly modified bracing". I agree that the selection of top & side woods and the bridge plate add a great deal to the sound of this instrument, but I looked long and hard before making my purchase, and everything that I read spoke of "modified" or "forward shifted bracing". It's really not a big thing to me, but when you read the marketing material for a limited edition guitar you kinda' believe what they say.
Did I buy this guitar because of a unique bracing style. No way. I bought it because to my ear, it's the nicest guitar I've ever played. We all hear sound differently and this one isn't going anywhere...(thanks, Charlie)
Quote from: Matthew Larrivee on April 15, 2011, 12:07:47 AM
and somehow they know better than someone who has built over 100,000 instruments..
The number of times a particular type of guitar design has been completed bears nothing in regards to the validity of the design. For instance, more than 150,000 Estaban Legacy Series guitar packages have been built and sold...
Quote from: Matthew Larrivee on April 15, 2011, 07:32:11 PM
Ultimately, I do agree that more should probably be done to differentiate between the -03 and the -10.
What that differentiation should be remains a point of contention for everyone from the player, to the dealer, and to the maker. Nobody likes change though – and if we were (for hypothetical example) change away from mahogany and rosewood on the -03's then everyone would be in an uproar. Dealers also do not like change because it instantly ages their inventory of instruments.
We do have some game altering changes that we may be making to the high end guitars in the next five years that will definitely add to the differentiation between satin and gloss – and they will not be just cosmetic changes.
Bingo. Awesome.
The Esteban comparison is not a fair one. Its design is intended as part of an overall marketing package. Its cheapness is a virtue and supports its marketing on television where it can avoid comparison with superior (IMO) but still inexpensive competition from Takamine, Yamaha, etc. The guitar's design and even its sound are almost incidental to the design of the inexpensive marketing package.
Larrivee makes and sells only all-solid wood guitars, and has sold more than 100,000 to buyers who are necessarily more discriminating (since they're spending so much more money). Its guitars compete head-to-head against other high quality products from Martin, Taylor, etc. Other than a satin finish as an alternative to a more labor-intensive gloss finish (and some of us really like the satin finish), there are no cost-saving compromises in quality. Sound and reputation as well as price are part of the competition. Selling tens of thousands of guitars at that price point and against that level of competition is different from success selling a cheap guitar as part if a hugely hyped marketing package.
The #sold in itself is meaningless as GA-ME stated tho what Lefty states most of us take to be implied when discussing the subject topic & players is most meaningful. The Esteban reference is an attempt of a contrarian view. A most interesting thread :thumb
Quote from: gitnoob on April 16, 2011, 02:15:19 AM
Yes, perhaps too strong. By "self-destruct" I really meant deform to the point where it needs warranty repair work, and that's obviously what factory builders want to avoid. A neck reset is simply a work-around for structural deformation, and I think Larrivee is on record as stating that neck resets are fairly uncommon for their guitars.
Like I said, I think it makes sense for the builder to let the player decide on that trade-off between structural robustness and tone (for a premium price).
Fair enough.
Quote from: GA-ME on April 16, 2011, 07:55:19 AM
The number of times a particular type of guitar design has been completed bears nothing in regards to the validity of the design.
And in this particular case it doesn't make them lighter. You don't get mass(weight) credits for experience.
Having played/handled hundreds of guitars from custom one off's to mass produced the one thing that I've found for me and only me if a guitar can't handle being used as a workimg tool,if I can't use the guage of strings and handle the changing enviroments I have to play in then its useless no matter the price or name.I have always found "lighter built" means couch guitar and "overbuilt" means working guitar.I have played a guitar of the high end value,lightly built and was told if I string it up with my 14-58's I would void there warranty.
Now I know this will make no sence to most but I don't find Larrivee's or Guilds to be overbuilt.Too some I'm sure they seem that way but again being as I use them for work I have no problem.As for the term "lighter built" I prefer the term "couch guitar" and the term "over built" to be "working built".So slam away.
To Jean,Matt and John there is no reason to change anthing there your guitars,your design and I'm happy with what you've done both as a player and a repairperson.
Quote from: unclrob on April 16, 2011, 11:23:48 AM
Having played/handled hundreds of guitars from custom one off's to mass produced the one thing that I've found for me and only me if a guitar can't handle being used as a workimg tool,if I can't use the guage of strings and handle the changing enviroments I have to play in then its useless no matter the price or name.I have always found "lighter built" means couch guitar and "overbuilt" means working guitar.I have played a guitar of the high end value,lightly built and was told if I string it up with my 14-58's I would void there warranty.
Now I know this will make no sence to most but I don't find Larrivee's or Guilds to be overbuilt.Too some I'm sure they seem that way but again being as I use them for work I have no problem.As for the term "lighter built" I prefer the term "couch guitar" and the term "over built" to be "working built".So slam away.
To Jean,Matt and John there is no reason to change anthing there your guitars,your design and I'm happy with what you've done both as a player and a repairperson.
Rob, you have to admit, your choice of string gauges falls outside the range of normal. Your argument simultaneously and effectively illustrates that Larrivee guitars ARE OVERBUILT and why it is necessary for manufacturers TO OVERBUILD!
I really........agree with Matt L...... and don't understand how some people are calling Larrivee's overbuilt. I find their guitars very light and fragile and would recommend that owners handle them with care. Some of you are also comparing apples with oranges here as well which is doing a great job of muddying the waters. For the sake of comparison I would concentrate on Larrivee, Taylor, Gibson, Godin , Martin, Takamine, and maybe a few others based on similar market share, cost ,and value. Getting back to the original topic..................... Larrivee could use adi spruce bracing on some of their high end models similar to what Taylor did with the 2008 fall limiteds..BTW If anyone thinks maple binding is over building ....they are just jealous :roll
GA-ME I know my string guage is outside the norm.Still I don't find the guitars "over built".Yes I agree that there not light and fragile as some want but again I don't think that some of these other brands that fit that mold work as gigging guitars.Whats funny is I have a few clients with these lightly built guitars and they never leave the house but these same players have Larrivee's,Guilds,Talemine and a few with Martins that are there gigging guitars.
I guess I can't understand buying a $4K guitar that is lightly built to the point that your afraid to play it hard for fear it might impload.
Quote from: unclrob on April 16, 2011, 11:23:48 AMI have always found "lighter built" means couch guitar and "overbuilt" means working guitar.
Good point, but I suspect that the couch-guitar market is bigger than the working-guitar market.
Personally, I think Larrivee makes some of the best couch guitars too. I don't need a loud booming guitar for the couch.
But this thread is really about what Larrivee can do to maintain their margins on their higher-end guitars while making them "worth" the higher price (and increasing their sales volume for those models). I think that given their build quality and quality of materials, they could go after the "boutique" buyers. But that would mean making them more responsive IMO.
Quote from: mas music on April 15, 2011, 11:26:25 PM
It is interesting to me that Martin and Taylor use many different bracing patterens. X, forward shifted X, A bracing, CV bracing etc. Perhaps Larrivee puts it's best bracing in all it's offerings
winna, winna, chicken dinna
"Rob, you have to admit, your choice of string gauges falls outside the range of normal. Your argument simultaneously and effectively illustrates that Larrivee guitars ARE OVERBUILT and why it is necessary for manufacturers TO OVERBUILD!"
Actually, I believe he is saying that they are properly built, NOT overbuilt. IOW, if you can't gig with your guitar because you are afraid it will fall apart, it is inadequate. Taking your argument, one might say that a car which stands up to the rigors of everyday commuting is overbuilt. I would say, it is properly built, because I EXPECT my cars to hold up to daily driving.
Quote from: L07 Shooting Star on April 15, 2011, 12:43:58 AM
Ditto from me. (That was the point I was trying to make in my last post).
So I am very thankful it is built the way it is whether one cares to call it "overbuilt" or not.
Kurt
This thread seems to have hypered down to being a place where we can disagree agreeably. After reading all the postings thus far it seems the consensus is that Larrivee's are built more robustly than some other guitars in their price range. If we look at it from a standpoint of what constitutes overbraced vs underbraced vs "just right". I mean no offense at all when I say unclrob easily qualifies as Papa Bear. To be able to string a guitar up to pitch or even half a step down and leave it there on a permanent basis with no ill effects suited up with 58-14s sure does not place it in UnderbracedVille. From the perspective of the man utilizing that guitar it seems just right. Strung with lights or extra lights that guitar is more than adequate. Some would say overbraced. If it were braced more sparsely (how much?-a little, a lot?) at some point there would be structural failure. I LIKE the fact that I can put mediums on my 000. After playing it for about a year (and it was new-old-stock so it was about 3 when I got it) the thing has opened up noticeably more than when I got it. I have never tried extra lights on it because I never go that light and because while it sounds okay with lights it is not nearly the tone king as with mediums. I tune it 1/2 step down because it is easier to play for me. Full pitch with lights. To those who judge Larrivee's as the standard it is just right. I like mine. There are other guitars that are more responsive in the price range and some are scalloped or more lightly braced. A few can still handle mediums and some are right at that point where I am too nervous to leave mediums on. I do not mind having a guitar that I would call-not-disrespectfully-overbraced. I am among those who would be inclined to buy the same model braced a bit lighter and warranted for "lights only" if it were available. I regret that I did not use a more acceptable term to describe the bracing in my earlier post. It was from a perspective that could have been worded more respectfully I guess. :wave
Quote from: Walkerman on April 16, 2011, 01:50:36 PM
Taking your argument, one might say that a car which stands up to the rigors of everyday commuting is overbuilt. I would say, it is properly built, because I EXPECT my cars to hold up to daily driving.
I never stated that a lightly built guitar isn't capable of being an every day gigging guitar. Someone else may have asserted that, but that is not my argument. In fact, I argue the EXACT OPPOSITE point of view. A well cared for, lightly built guitar, will gig everyday as well as a guitar built like a tank. My friend Junior has been playing his lightly built SCGC OM at 4-5, gigs a week for nearly 17 years and its none the worse for the wear.
Quote from: GA-ME on April 16, 2011, 03:03:12 PM
I never stated that a lightly built guitar isn't capable of being an every day gigging guitar. Someone else may have asserted that, but that is not my argument. In fact, I argue the EXACT OPPOSITE point of view. A well cared for, lightly built guitar, will gig everyday as well as a guitar built like a tank. My friend Junior has been playing his lightly built SCGC OM at 4-5, gigs a week for nearly 17 years and its none the worse for the wear.
You said Rob...who said his guitars should be a working guitar, strung the way he liked, (everyday gigging guitar).. proved his was OVERBUILT. Move on.
OTOH, I NEVER said that you said "that a lightly built guitar isn't capable of being an every day gigging guitar"...now, did I.
Quote from: GA-ME on April 16, 2011, 03:03:12 PM
I never stated that a lightly built guitar isn't capable of being an every day gigging guitar. Someone else may have asserted that, but that is not my argument. In fact, I argue the EXACT OPPOSITE point of view. A well cared for, lightly built guitar, will gig everyday as well as a guitar built like a tank. My friend Junior has been playing his lightly built SCGC OM at 4-5, gigs a week for nearly 17 years and its none the worse for the wear.
Perhaps the most famous 'working guitar', the Clarence White 1935 Martin D-28, is also a very lightly built guitar. That one has certainly left the couch and so have many early Martins, Santa Cruz, Collings, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97czMjuAnSA&NR=1 why exactly were we changing again? :beer
Flake have you been talking to my son he calls me papa bear.... :bgrin:
I'm not putting down any of these guitars that are "lighter built" and I'm sure there are lots of players that gig on them.All I'm saying is for me I will never own a guitar that can't handle med or heavier guage strings.As for older Martins back in the ole days string guage's were heavier a set of 12's were concidered light 13's med. and 14 heavy's.I had a older jazz player that played arch tops his high E was a 16 and his B string was a wound 20 and what an amazing tone and volumn he got.
I understand what players are going after with the lighter builds.I just don't think that Larrivee needs to move in that direction.I mean heck they're the first company I came across that stepped out of "lets make a Martin".I love how there bracing system holds up over the years,no behind bridge bellying.I got more balance tone and better volumn from them then any of the Gibson,Martin or even Guld.Now my oldest is a 94 that I got used and its out in anywhere from the 80's to under a cover outdoor gig that got up to 112 with 80 to 90% humity.Indoor gigs that that the AC was set at 60 degrees and humity in the 20% range.So again please Larrivee do no harm to your guitars by changing anything there perfect{IMHO}as they are. :thumb
It's true that the Clarence White-Tony Rice Martin D-28 is lightly built. It's also true, according to numerous articles I've read, that it receives almost constant attention. I doubt many of us could, or would, maintain it sufficiently to gig with it.
My goodness, did everyone miss Matthews' last post. :? With the nugget about changes coming? We'd rather do the overbuilt debate for the 9000th time then.
Quote from: Matthew Larrivee on April 15, 2011, 07:32:11 PM
Ultimately, I do agree that more should probably be done to differentiate between the -03 and the -10.
We do have some game altering changes that we may be making to the high end guitars in the next five years that will definitely add to the differentiation between satin and gloss – and they will not be just cosmetic changes.
:ph34r:
Quote from: unclrob on April 16, 2011, 01:22:38 PM
GA-ME I know my string guage is outside the norm.Still I don't find the guitars "over built".Yes I agree that there not light and fragile as some want but again I don't think that some of these other brands that fit that mold work as gigging guitars.Whats funny is I have a few clients with these lightly built guitars and they never leave the house but these same players have Larrivee's,Guilds,Talemine and a few with Martins that are there gigging guitars.
I guess I can't understand buying a $4K guitar that is lightly built to the point that your afraid to play it hard for fear it might impload.
I think mine is a prime example. 30 years with a more normal medium sting choice. No adjustment rod and no neck problems. A slight hump where it joins body more not enough that it couldn't be kept in check with a little fret work. It also sounds dang good and super versitile. Not a full time pro but it's done a couple hundred gigs over the years I'd guess and tons of playing in all kinds of conditions. Jeremy I'm glad you backed-off of self destructing comment because the way I see it, neck resets are pretty much a result of that in my mind. Unless you just want to blame the strings and thier tension seperately from guitar.
That being said I love my super lightly built Gallagher too. Different thing. But it did require a neck reset and I'm afraid to take it out much. I swear it wieght half of what the L does. It's Mahogany B\sides, but still. Feels like a feather after playing L.