Tell me what I need !!

[haslar]

I'm in the process of setting up a classy soul/jazz cover act.
Cassandra Wilson, Madeleine Peyroux, Norah Jones, Diana Krall, acoustic Clapton, this kind of stuff.

Setup: drums, double bass, guitar, occasional keyboards, voice.

I think an acoustic guitar sound would fit nicely in this band.
I am already well equiped for the electric stuff.

Unfortunately, I don't know much about acoustic guitars... So I don't know what kind of guitar I should look into.

The guitar I would buy would be primarily for live use.

For this kind of music and environment, what should I go for?
Parlor?
Triple O?
Dreadnought ?
Jumbo?
Dobro?

I was thinking about getting a Variax 700 Acoustic, as it would cover all these bases. It would also allow me to have various sounds, depending on the tune played.
However the price seems a bit high compared to a good acoustic w/piezo.

What do you guys think?

[Johnny Raz]

Anderson Crowdster -- if you have the $$$

[Jerrod]

Yeah, but if he's not an acoustic guy (I'm not sure from his post) the Variax might be an easier transition from electrics. It's not like acoustic guitars are just electric guitars with different pickups.

[r9player]

A lot of it depends on how much you have to spent.
If you are much more an electric player .. a Crowdster or like guitar is a great choice ...
the range and choices in a regular guitar pending budget are near limitless ....

[Scott Peterson]

John and I have a completely different assesment and opinion of the Variax Acoustic.

I play in a professionaly run country band as the acoustic guitar player. I am a hired gun on this gig. Managment is very exacting about tone, image and parts. There is no wiggle room to get "close" or have a "fake" digital tone. My point? I am not alone in my assessment of what the Variax Acoustic can/will/does do.

I have played it live at club shows, showcases, outdoor shows and very large festival shows with never a hitch. It sounds incredible and having a flatter body than a given acoustic is a great help live in order to put on a good show. You can move around a lot more; and it does not feedback. NO matter what.

A properly mic'd acoustic is the best choice for tone; but it is highly impractical and doesn't happen live around here much. Hanging with a full on band isn't realistic at volume; you howl and feedback. Been there, done that.

I have owned and played Taylor, Martin, Wechter, Ovation and Tacoma among other acoustic guitars chiefly for live use. Anyone wanting to argue with me about how "real" or "acoustic" a piezo or piezo/blender system sounds more authentic or somehow "better" in *any* way to the Variax just doesn't have any weight with me. I flat out hate the quacky clicky thumpy piezo "tone" and anyone prefering that to the Variax Acoustic is well, not in agreement with me.

My Tacoma DR-38 is an artist relations guitar; it has been recorded and was on a world tour (and used on stage) by Gary "Bisquit" Davis with Dolly Parton. He had it for 4 years and it is on Grammy winning recordings. It is a fine guitar, far beyond what you might expect, but live it is no match for the Variax Acoustic in tone or feedback IMHO.

I have no ties to Line 6, nothing to sell, and no dog in the hunt. Just trying to clearly lay out my opinion and back it up.

I respect John and like him a great deal, but we have some very polar opinions on things. To each thier own.

And FWIW, the Variax 700 "Acoustic" does have a neck like an acoustic, a bridge like an acoustic and strings up with acoustic strings like..... well, an acoustic. You attack it and play it like an acoustic. The Variax 700 (aka non-acoustic) has electric guitar strings and is lacking considerably on the acoustic tone side IMHO. And yes, I own one of those too.

[haslar]

Many thanks, Scott & John, for these insightful posts.

Just like Scott, I have a dislike for Piezo pickups. I owned an Ovation 1968 Elite, and never bonded with it. Playability, shape, sound, and especially that piezo thing: I liked nothing of that.
Sold it and never looked back.

Last year I played a Taylor 300 series, acoustically only, and loved it !! But I have no experience with it plugged into a PA.

so Scott"s experience with the Variax is interesting - but can you tell me if the Variax is OK to play unplugged at home, or not?
The price is pretty high, I think, so I'd like a guitar I can use in the FoH as well as at home.

[Scott Peterson]

You can play the Variax 700 Acoustic at home, but it doesn't project like an acoustic guitar. It is created to plug in, period.

[waxnsteel]

I'm not a fan of the Variax either, sound quality, and tracking being my main issues, but, for your situation, it could be a vibe killer. You got a double bass, and the casual jazz/soul vibe going, I gotta say, you might look into a bigger hollow-body a-la Tuck Andress, or a cool acoustic. It's not just a musical instrument, it's a stage accessory. Your opinions may vary, but the look of the Variax wouldn't fit in, and doesn't exactly scream "Class." It kinda screams "Prosumer." I think a cool acoustic would fill the bill better. Would work very well for a party cover band, though. If it makes anyone feel any better, I hate the new Taylor ES more than the Variax... lol

[John Phillips]

FWIW I don't like the ES either - I don't think it's an improvement over piezos as much as a giant sideways step... it sounds just as unlike a real acoustic guitar, but in a different way, that's all (IMO). I also dislike the restricted onboard controls - if you're going to have knobs on an acoustic, you need more than just bass and treble - the older most basic (non-Blender) Fishman model with the Notch filter, phase switch and mid (with frequency) control is far more useful on stage. Either that, or no knobs at all and do it with an external box.

I've got the older Fishman system, but I "accidentally" added a Fishman Rare Earth soundhole pickup - at one point I thought there might be a problem with the piezo, and needed an onboard backup in case it went down at a gig. In the event, the piezo was fine, but the combination of it and the magnetic was so much better-sounding than either alone that I wired the Rare Earth in permanently, and now use both together. It's kind-of like the ES in that there is a magnetic sensor at the end of the fingerboard and a body sensor in the bridge area, but to me it sounds so much better... and I can control the tone and balance of them with the Fishman preamp.

I notice dave251 (Wendler) is using a combination piezo/magnetic system on his guitars, which from the clips he's posted sound very good too.


I respect Scott's opinion on his Variax (he's earning good money with it, for a start ;)), but that lack of 'acoustic projection' is one of the main things that kill it for me - there's none of that tactile feedback you get from a real acoustic... no thump under your hand when you play hard, and no feeling of connection to the amplified sound - at least, not for me. It's probably an exaggeration to say that you can hear the latency (it's most likely in the few-millisecond range), but it did feel like that to me. It won't feed back when amplified - which I certainly admit could be a major advantage on stage - because it's inherently acoustically dead. The way the sound is created breaks the connection between the physical instrument and the electrical output.

And, no matter how much I dislike the piezo 'tizz' and quack
(which I do, especially with "soundman's-acoustic-guitar-EQ" on it), I dislike that digital sizzle and crackle even more...

Different priorities :).

[waxnsteel]

I gree on hearingg/feeling latencey, but more specifically, it doesn't respond appropriately to vibrato, and there isn't any touch responsiveness.

I was really upset with that ES from Taylor, man. Can't express that enough. There has to be a way to improve it. The lows sound really great, and on the first 3 frets, I can live with the sound, but move up at all, and it's awful to me. Maybe if there were a way to control what part of thesound came from which sensor, just some way to get that awful, middy, picking over the fretboard sound.

I've jammed with a guy before who used mic/mag/piezo on a yamaha, and it did sound phenomenal. Still not exactly acoustic, but more acoustic than I did.

[haslar]

Originally posted by waxnsteel
Your opinions may vary, but the look of the Variax wouldn't fit in, and doesn't exactly scream "Class." It kinda screams "Prosumer." I think a cool acoustic would fill the bill better.

That is a valid point. For my cover band, we have to look classy, as we are going to play at expensive restaurants & bars as well as at corporate cocktails & the like.
We have been discussing dressing matters seriously, and I hadn't thought about the Variax not looking the part.

I think I might well follow John's recommendation: a Taylor 312 or 314 CE.

It would look OK on stage, I suppose:
http://www.bostonguitar.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/taylor-314-ce.JPG

This one goes for $1,500 at Boston Guitars...
Looks tempting.

.. but is that the ES system I see, on the upper horn?

:rolleyes:

[haslar]

BTW: Is there a real difference between the Grand Concert 312CE and the Grand Auditorium 314CE?
I'm really not familiar with acoustic body shapes.

Taylor's website says:

312CE: "Scaled-down proportions make the Grand Concert ideal for fingerstyle playing."

314CE: "The Grand Auditorium is a strong fingerpicking guitar that also adapts well to medium strumming. "

I don't know which one would fit my needs best? I would fingerpick almost exclusively, no strumming.

[Bluzsteel]

Have a Taylor 414CE with ES , run it into a Fishman PL Pro EQ w/ DI and play live shows with it and it sounds great, dont have problem with the ES at all.

[Den]

While your shopping, you owe it to yourself to check out the new Martins with the onboard Aura systems ... I finally had an opportunity to play one last week (OMC Aura) and was blown away. This was the finest example I've found to date of a real acoustic guitar that sounds amazing ... really "acoustic" plugged in. It offers several "sound images" to choose from, which are built using high quality mic recordings of the same model guitar. No piezo quack to be found when blending in the Aura sound images. There's also built-in feedback reduction, great EQ and an onboard tuner.

If you haven't yet, you can read about the Aura system at Fishman's website and see the details of the various Martin Auras at the Martin site.

This is a great "walk in with your guitar, plug-in and play" solution. For not much more than a lower end Taylor, you can have a guitar that, IMHO opinion, is in another league when it comes to an amplified acoustic that's also a great acousic unplugged.

[haslar]

This one?

http://www.musiciansbuy.com/mmMBCOM/Images/martin_OMCAURA_dw.jpg

It DOES look good, that's fer sure !!
:)

But it seems to go for $2550, which is a lot more than the $1500 asked for a 312CE or 314CE.

I don't think my financial director (i.e. my wife) would let me spend that much...
:D

[haslar]

BTW have you tried this one?

Martin 16 Series: 000C-16GTE Premium



The List Price is $1849.00, a bit more suitable for me.




http://www.martinguitar.com/guitars/choosing/gImages/000C-16GTE%20Premium.jpg

[Den]

I haven't tried that one yet ... but I will try to find one. When you consider pricing, keep in mind that with other solutions, you usually need additional outboard gear to get your sound where you want. These Martins are ready to plug in and go. If you have a chance to actually hear one of these in person, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the tones, both plugged and unplugged. let me know if you get to play one.

[haslar]

Originally posted by Den
When you consider pricing, keep in mind that with other solutions, you usually need additional outboard gear to get your sound where you want. These Martins are ready to plug in and go.

:confused: What do you mean exactly? The Taylor 312 and 314 CE are also plug in & go, AFAIK? Or I am missing something?

:)

[John Phillips]

Originally posted by haslar
:confused: What do you mean exactly? The Taylor 312 and 314 CE are also plug in & go, AFAIK? Or I am missing something?
I would say that the new Taylors with the ES are not plug-in-and-go, not if you're going straight to a PA anyway. Nowhere near enough EQ and especially anti-feedback control... you'll need an external preamp. Which pretty much defeats the purpose of having controls on the guitar at all, IMO. This is one of the major complaints I have with the ES, which does not apply as much to the Fishman systems, which do have more effective onboard controls.

IMO you want one thing (no onboard at all and an external preamp - simplicity and reliability, and the abilty to change preamps if required) or the other (full onboard control, maximum at-hand player convenience)... not a halfway house requiring both.

Of course, if you're only playing pro gigs with a big enough PA and a sound engineer who can dedicate a feedback filter or separate EQ to your channel, that may be a different story.

Just my opinion.

[waxnsteel]

When I tried out the aura, all it did was thin out my signal. Don't know if an "on-board" version would really be any better, but you never know. That ES stuff, while I don't like the sound, I will defend it's gain-before-feedback capabilities. It crushed anything anything piezo-ish or microphones in that category. In either case outboard may be a nice thing, and may provide enhancements, but is by no means required. All that control required on Piezo/dual source, and mag systems are really kind of a non-issue for ES.
And the ES needs no external "preamp" if we must be technical. That's probably one of the best features on the system. EQ may be what you're after, but an additional preamp? Not required. That's why Taylor hired Rupert Neve to help on the project. The EQ on board may not be comprehensive, but it's for tone control, not surgery. I don't know what can be done to make the ES sound good to my ears, but certainly a preamp is not the answer. In that respect, I would have to say, with the Balanced output, and no DI required, it is plug and play. The ES isn't going to sound much better going through another $100-$500 box.

However, John brings up great points about feedback filters and/or EQ's. It would be great to have a 15 or 31 band graphic, or a quality 4 band parametric EQ to cut out feedback-prone frequencies, or a notch filter. In the case of Piezo, mic, mag, or combo systems, those could help out a lot. Could be something to look into so you know YOU will have ultimate control over feedback.

On X12 VS X14 guitars, I agree, there's more "boom" and a little more hollowness in the X14's. AND especially if you're a smaller dude, the X12 would likely be a better fit for you. I stilll like playing the Grand Concert size guitars, though they look tiny when I play them.

That T5 guitar... I played it, I'm still not sure what it's supposed to be... It is definitely it's own animal. Kinda cool, but not for me. I'm sure tons of people will love it.

[John Phillips]

Originally posted by waxnsteel
When I tried out the aura, all it did was thin out my signal.I agree there too - it sounded a bit 'digital' to me.

That ES stuff, while I don't like the sound, I will defend it's gain-before-feedback capabilities. It crushed anything anything piezo-ish or microphones in that category. In either case outboard may be a nice thing, and may provide enhancements, but is by no means required. All that control required on Piezo/dual source, and mag systems are really kind of a non-issue for ES.
And the ES needs no external "preamp" if we must be technical. That's probably one of the best features on the system. EQ may be what you're after, but an additional preamp? Not required. That's why Taylor hired Rupert Neve to help on the project.I know, and I still can't see what the fuss is about that. I found the signal-to-noise ratio was quite poor (hiss especially) as well as not being able to get the sound or control I wanted. Of course, you're "supposed" to use it balanced - but that's quite difficult for a lot of players, who may use either an acoustic amp with a 1/4" input, or traditional effects pedals (like I do, and I've seen some pros do too). It seems to me - as with the lack of hands-on anti-feedback control, which I disagree is any less necessary than on a piezo system, once you get it up to a reasonable volume - that the ES has been designed for a theoretical 'big stage only' market where it's assumed that all the problems and other signal processing will be taken care of at the desk with outboards... not for the real-world situation of many gigging musicians.

Just my opinion of course, but I really think Taylor have shot themselves in the foot with this one - especially as they've now made their guitars completely incompatible with any other system, without massive reworking.

[Den]

Been away for a few days ... but I agree with John's well written responses on this one. I didn't find Taylors ES guitars to be "plug-n-play" because the tone left me cold. Sure, you can technically plug them in and play them without additional processing, but if great tone is not consistently delivered, why bother. This is, of course, subjective, but I know I'm far from alone in this opinion.

In addition to the tone quality, EQ and anti-feedback considerations can be deal breakers depending on where, what and how you play.

I also agree with waxnsteel as far as the stand alone Aura system ... it didn't impress me enought to keep the one I purchased several months ago. In all fairness, it comes with 16 "sound images" for specific guitars, none of which seemed exactly right for mine. Other players have found some of these to match perfectly and that would make all the difference. Fishman offers many more sound images online, but to download them requires the purchase of a special cable and more patience than I wanted to invest. Again, others have found the system to be the magic box for them.

One other disadvantage, however minor to some, is the the Aura box is pretty heavy and large ... one more piece to carry and set up.

As far as the onboard Aura ... my experience with the OMC Aura I played was in an entire different league than the stand alone box. What I experienced is likely what those with the stand alone system experience with the proper sound images. After having spent so much time with the other Aura, I was totally surprised at what the onboard Aura delivered.

If you're interested in a lot more buzz on the Aura, as well as other amplification strategies, you may want to visit the Acoustic Guitar Forum ... lots of great stuff there.

[haslar]

Originally posted by Den
If you're interested in a lot more buzz on the Aura, as well as other amplification strategies, you may want to visit the Acoustic Guitar Forum ... lots of great stuff there.

Thanks for the hint, I didn't know about this forum.

I'm getting confused about those ES System, aura system...
I understand that all I need is a good OOO or OM cutaway guitar, with decent onboard preamplification, that I can plug straight into a PA. If the guitar requires outboard preamp / EQ devices, then it's clearly not for me.

I'll be playing small venues, so I definitely don't want or need a guitar that was made for venues like the Royal Festival Hall or Wembley Arena !!!

And I'll have about $1500 to spend.

I give up the idea of a Variax Acoustic.

So: a secondhand 312CE (w/ Fishman) would do, it seems.
But are there alternatives I should consider?
That Martin 000C-16GTE ?
Others?
:)

[Den]

Originally posted by haslar
.... So: a secondhand 312CE (w/ Fishman) would do, it seems.
But are there alternatives I should consider?
That Martin 000C-16GTE ?
Others?
:) It sounds to me as though you're getting a better idea of what you'd like and not like. The information and suggestions offered here have all been very good. If your focus is primarily a decent amplified acoustic sound, especially for smaller venues (and lower volume), there are many possibilities that could work well for you. If you're more interested in great acoustic-only tone, and an amplified tone that is as close as possible to that fundamental acoustic tone, it becomes more challenging.

The amplification of an acoustic is often seen as "the great equalizer" in the sense that once amplified, your tone is, for the most part, a product of the amplification system more so than the guitar itself.

Once you've decided what's most important to you tonally in both areas, the next step is simply for you to get your hands engaged in playing some of these guitars and your ears engaged in hearing them. Most of us have found that guitars we thought would be amazing, often aren't ... and others that we were not even interested in have surprised us. Ultimately, it's the guitar with tone and playability that inspires you most that's really the best choice for you.

[haslar]

Originally posted by Den
If your focus is primarily a decent amplified acoustic sound, especially for smaller venues (and lower volume), there are many possibilities that could work well for you. If you're more interested in great acoustic-only tone, and an amplified tone that is as close as possible to that fundamental acoustic tone, it becomes more challenging.

My focus definitely is a decent amplified acoustic sound for smaller venues.
I must be realistic: I'm buying that guitar for a job.

Even though I'd love THE perfect acoustic guitar, no-holds-barred, cost-no-object item, I must take into account that:
- I must make a difference between what I need vs what I want (the Great Peterson Principle) :)
- My budget is my budget: I'm not spending more than that.
- That guitar will gig quite a bit: I don't really want to have to worry too much about it getting the occasional ding or scratch.
- It MUST be plug&go. I'll be playing in various places & situations, I don't want to have to worry about getting the right EQ or tube compressor !!

Den, you're right: this thread has allowed me to clarify my needs.

Basically: a workingman's 000 or OM, plug&play, $1500 fingerpicker's guitar that sounds good through a PA without having to use outboard equipment.
:dude

[Funky Chicken]

If you are primarily an electric player, you will likely warm up to a Taylor neck quicker than a Martin or other brand.
I gig with a borrowed 314CE a couple of times a year at the Lion's Den in NYC. (It's a fly-in gig and I can't carry more than one guitar). It has the last incarnation of Fishman before the ES was introduced. 2 Minutes with the engineer and 95% of the piezo quack is dialed out.
It's a very good guitar. Not a great one, but very good. In my case that's enough.
In Scott's case, I understand why he uses the Variax. It sounds really good in a higher dB situation and is consistent.
Given how you plan to use the guitar, a 3 or 4 series Taylor is a great choice. The 14 body is a touch bigger and strums better than a 12 series. They are both good fingerstyle guitars. They should be easy to find, being Taylor's high volume models.

[Scott Peterson]

Not trying to press my case, but just offering some more to the debate.

I had the Aura and tried, hard, to make it work for me. I didn't find it pleasing at all. I had various Tacoma guitars that sounded pretty good, but through the Aura not so good.

As for your criteria, though the Variax is out of the running.... well, it meets and excedes every bit of that criteria.

I would like to point out that I did some modifications to mine (which still put me well under your $1500 price point btw) to make it a better playing instrument. I micro-meshed the neck, had the frets leveled and crowned, a new nut installed, added strap locks, removed the soundhole sticker and changed out the bridge pins (vanity and asthetics only on that one. :D)

One key to note is that when watching someone play this guitar, it appears to be an acoustic guitar. It has the proper look. In the band I play it primarily in, I am a hired sideman and my role is to play acoustic guitar. I approached managment about the Variax before I bought it and they wanted to see it before they said okay. One rehersal with it was enough to convince them that it would fit the traditional "look" enough to make them happy. It is a serious issue in that context. Just pointing it out.

With the batteries in it, it is truly plug-and-play on any stage and never fails to sound fantastic and totally removes soundcheck and ringing out the feedback for a soundman. This is important for me because we play a lot of festivals where you jump on stage and have about 5 minutes to be setup and ready to go. Having tried to make Taylor and Tacoma acoustic guitars work in that context for years before the Variax, well, it is indeed a pleasure that I still get enourmous satisfaction from.

Tonewise it has adjustable compression and mic position sliders on the fly along with volume. The Mic Position slider in practice is a tone control. The Dreadnaught, Jumbo and C&W presets are the ones I use in that band. I'll put them up against any piezo/mic blender system any day in real on stage conditions and sound better and more authentic. I say that with confidence because I do it in real life conditions and have for over a year now. An in store demo won't let you learn that, good impression or bad.

One other distinct advantage is that because it is thinner than a given acoustic, it is easier and more fun to jump around and move on stage akin to an electric player. It makes for better performances as an entertainer and not just as a strummer frozen in the "no-feedback" zone sweetspot. I am fairly energetic when I play, and like to move around and play hard. No feedback and utterly consistant tone in that format is an important factor that I have never mentioned before.

Just some more things to ponder. Nothing to prove or not trying to "win" something here. Just pointing out my experiences with it all.

[Den]

As always, Scott, you make great points and express them well. I hope no one considers your posts to be about "winning" anything. I think most of us appreciate the effort you make to share your experience and the details of the thought process behind it. I for one, have learned a great deal from the great perspective and info you generously bring to the forum.

From my experience, I agree with you that the Variax is hard to beat for an amplified acoustic in a live performance environment. It seems the most difficult challenge is for those looking for one instrument that does both a great job both amplified, and straight acoustic. In the long run, most of us might be better off with your solution ... having a guitar(s) for actual acoustic use and one or more dedicated to amplified live use.

[haslar]

Originally posted by Den
In the long run, most of us might be better off with your solution ... having a guitar(s) for actual acoustic use and one or more dedicated to amplified live use.

Great posts, Scott & Den.
I fully agree with Den: it'd be great to have both guitars...
but my finances unfortunately do not allow this luxury, for now anyway.
So I have to settle on the next best thing: I can only afford one guitar, and not a very expensive one. So that guitar will have to do the acoustic thing as well as the amplified thing.
Even though I have no doubts the Variax would do the latter, I do not believe it would be the best choice for the former...

This being said, Scott, I now really want to check out that Variax, see what it does for me ! :)

[Scott Peterson]

It is all good guys. The Variax Acoustic is a live plugged-in or recording direct machine. It cannot and willnot replace any acoustic - cheap or expensive - for unplugged strumming around the campfire or at home.

[Den]

The recording thing ... that's something I've been wanting to ask you, Scott. If you have a choice between micing up something like your Tacoma or plugging in the Variax, which way do you prefer for recording?

[waxnsteel]

If I were in your spot, Scott, I might be playing that guitar, too. Makes a lot of sense.

[opdev]

Reviving an old post....

How is the variax for recording.