Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:

Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:

Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:

1) Approximately $500.00 max cost (lower if possible)
2) Low Action - Out of box (without visit to local Luthier)
3) Perfect Intonation - Out of box (without visit to local Luthier)
4) Great Box projection (Volume)
5) Broad frequency range
6) Accommodates both fingering and strumming styles
7) Great for people with stubby fat fingers.

NO! this is not an attempt to catch a fish, so please divert your
narcissistic/anger management diatribe elsewhere. Please, only honest
people with good intentions need reply.

And before you say anything, I do realize that to find anyone that's
familiar with all guitar models made by all manufactures is next to
nil, unless their an old Luthier. And of course you'd have to
consider variances in assembly lines and peoples personal preference.
After all, in some respects the answer might be considered subjective.
But some guitar characteristics can be measured, which is covered in
my list above.

Just a sampling of possibilities, based upon experience, to be taken
with a grain of salt!

Thanks!

P.S. I was looking at the: Washburn D46SCE Southwest Dreadnought
Cutaway Acoustic-Electric Guitar w/case

Re: Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:23:54 -0500, Triad <Music@TheCore,net > wrote:

>Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:
>
>1) Approximately $500.00 max cost (lower if possible)
>2) Low Action - Out of box (without visit to local Luthier)
>3) Perfect Intonation - Out of box (without visit to local Luthier)
>4) Great Box projection (Volume)
>5) Broad frequency range
>6) Accommodates both fingering and strumming styles
>7) Great for people with stubby fat fingers.
>
>NO! this is not an attempt to catch a fish, so please divert your
>narcissistic/anger management diatribe elsewhere. Please, only honest
>people with good intentions need reply.
>
>And before you say anything, I do realize that to find anyone that's
>familiar with all guitar models made by all manufactures is next to
>nil, unless their an old Luthier. And of course you'd have to

"unless their an old Luthier" should have been: "unless they're an old
Luthier" For those, would be english teachers.

>consider variances in assembly lines and peoples personal preference.
>After all, in some respects the answer might be considered subjective.
>But some guitar characteristics can be measured, which is covered in
>my list above.
>
>Just a sampling of possibilities, based upon experience, to be taken
>with a grain of salt!
>
>Thanks!
>
> P.S. I was looking at the: Washburn D46SCE Southwest Dreadnought
>Cutaway Acoustic-Electric Guitar w/case

Re: Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:

ProgRock wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:23:54 -0500, Triad <Music@TheCore,net > wrote:

>> And before you say anything, I do realize that to find anyone that's
>> familiar with all guitar models made by all manufactures is next to
>> nil, unless their an old Luthier. And of course you'd have to
>
> "unless their an old Luthier" should have been: "unless they're an old
> Luthier" For those, would be english teachers.

You gotta love a guy that flames another guy's grammar with a horrible
sentence like that. Check your capitalization, Shakespeare.

If we're going to start correcting people's spelling and grammar in this
NG, then there won't be any time for anything else.

Re: Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the

Sean wrote:

> You gotta love a guy that flames another guy's grammar with a horrible
> sentence like that. Check your capitalization, Shakespeare.
>
> If we're going to start correcting people's spelling and grammar in this
> NG, then there won't be any time for anything else.

You also gotta love the OP who wants that laundry list of qualifiers
for $500 or less. Good luck.

I also enjoyed his arrogant, narcissistic diatriabe about arrogant,
narcissistic diatribers.

Like you can post a question on usenet and then control who will and
won't answer, or how they will answer. Good luck with that too!

Re: Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:


"Triad" <Music@TheCore,net > wrote in message
news:botvu39vauqh8465ia49c7tusvn5bu7t7n@4ax,com ...
> Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:
>
> 1) Approximately $500.00 max cost (lower if possible)
> 2) Low Action - Out of box (without visit to local Luthier)
> 3) Perfect Intonation - Out of box (without visit to local Luthier)
> 4) Great Box projection (Volume)
> 5) Broad frequency range
> 6) Accommodates both fingering and strumming styles
> 7) Great for people with stubby fat fingers.
>
> NO! this is not an attempt to catch a fish, so please divert your
> narcissistic/anger management diatribe elsewhere. Please, only honest
> people with good intentions need reply.
>
> And before you say anything, I do realize that to find anyone that's
> familiar with all guitar models made by all manufactures is next to
> nil, unless their an old Luthier. And of course you'd have to
> consider variances in assembly lines and peoples personal preference.
> After all, in some respects the answer might be considered subjective.
> But some guitar characteristics can be measured, which is covered in
> my list above.
>
> Just a sampling of possibilities, based upon experience, to be taken
> with a grain of salt!
>
> Thanks!
>
> P.S. I was looking at the: Washburn D46SCE Southwest Dreadnought
> Cutaway Acoustic-Electric Guitar w/case

500 wont get you much.

Bob

Re: Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:

sycochkn wrote:
> 500 wont get you much.

For 500, I'll send you a personal message,
in pdf format, so that you can experience
arrogant and narcissistic diatriabe.

For an additional 250, I'll record it on a CD
with me doing the voice of either Bob Dylan,
Capt Kirk or Popeye, your choice.


Lumpy

In Your Ears for 40 Years
www .LumpyMusic,com

Re: Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:


"Lumpy" <lumpy@digitalcartography,com > wrote in message
news:65b249F2fbf6vU1@mid.individual,net ...
> sycochkn wrote:
>> 500 wont get you much.
>
> For 500, I'll send you a personal message,
> in pdf format, so that you can experience
> arrogant and narcissistic diatriabe.
>
> For an additional 250, I'll record it on a CD
> with me doing the voice of either Bob Dylan,
> Capt Kirk or Popeye, your choice.
>
>
> Lumpy
>
> In Your Ears for 40 Years
> www .LumpyMusic,com
>
>
>

You have made my point.

Bob

Re: Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:

"Triad" <Music@TheCore,net > wrote in message
news:botvu39vauqh8465ia49c7tusvn5bu7t7n@4ax,com ...
> Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:
>
> 1) Approximately $500.00 max cost (lower if possible)
> 2) Low Action - Out of box (without visit to local Luthier)
> 3) Perfect Intonation - Out of box (without visit to local Luthier)
> 4) Great Box projection (Volume)
> 5) Broad frequency range
> 6) Accommodates both fingering and strumming styles
> 7) Great for people with stubby fat fingers.
>
> NO! this is not an attempt to catch a fish, so please divert your
> narcissistic/anger management diatribe elsewhere. Please, only honest
> people with good intentions need reply.
>
> And before you say anything, I do realize that to find anyone that's
> familiar with all guitar models made by all manufactures is next to
> nil, unless their an old Luthier. And of course you'd have to
> consider variances in assembly lines and peoples personal preference.
> After all, in some respects the answer might be considered subjective.
> But some guitar characteristics can be measured, which is covered in
> my list above.
>
> Just a sampling of possibilities, based upon experience, to be taken
> with a grain of salt!
>
> Thanks!
>
> P.S. I was looking at the: Washburn D46SCE Southwest Dreadnought
> Cutaway Acoustic-Electric Guitar w/case

OK I'll bite. How many of your 7 qualifiers does it meet already?

--

gcisko@hotmail,com

The Pentatonic Scale Explained
http :// bluechainlightning,net

Re: Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:

Triad:
> > Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the
> > following: 1) Approximately $500.00 max cost (lower if possible)
> > 2) Low Action - Out of box (without visit to local Luthier)
> > 3) Perfect Intonation - Out of box (without visit to local Luthier)
> > 4) Great Box projection (Volume)
> > 5) Broad frequency range
> > 6) Accommodates both fingering and strumming styles
> > 7) Great for people with stubby fat fingers.

> > ... I was looking at the: Washburn D46SCE Southwest Dreadnought
> > Cutaway Acoustic-Electric Guitar w/case

Cisko:
> OK I'll bite. How many of your 7 qualifiers does it meet already?

I think all 500 dollar guitars have low action and
perfect intonation out of the box, without a visit
to local luthier.

But "broad frequency range"? Well that's asking a little
much. I think you have to start at about $3000 if
you want that.


Lumpy

In Your Ears for 40 Years
www .LumpyMusic,com

Re: Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:

Triad <Music@TheCore,net > wrote:
> Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:
>
> 1) Approximately $500.00 max cost (lower if possible)
> 2) Low Action - Out of box (without visit to local Luthier)
> 3) Perfect Intonation - Out of box (without visit to local Luthier)
> 4) Great Box projection (Volume)
> 5) Broad frequency range
> 6) Accommodates both fingering and strumming styles
> 7) Great for people with stubby fat fingers.
>
> NO! this is not an attempt to catch a fish, so please divert your
> narcissistic/anger management diatribe elsewhere. Please, only honest
> people with good intentions need reply.
>
> And before you say anything, I do realize that to find anyone that's
> familiar with all guitar models made by all manufactures is next to
> nil, unless their an old Luthier. And of course you'd have to
> consider variances in assembly lines and peoples personal preference.
> After all, in some respects the answer might be considered subjective.
> But some guitar characteristics can be measured, which is covered in
> my list above.
>
> Just a sampling of possibilities, based upon experience, to be taken
> with a grain of salt!
>
> Thanks!
>
> P.S. I was looking at the: Washburn D46SCE Southwest Dreadnought
> Cutaway Acoustic-Electric Guitar w/case

You're asking an awful lot for $500. Specifically, I'd say your
"perfect out of the box" criteria are a bit off the wall.

Do yourself a favor. Set aside $50 of the $500 for a good setup. Then
take the $450 and check out one of the mid-priced Seagull models. I
mention these specifically because all but a couple of the models have a
neck width of 1.8" at the nut, which will accommodate fat fingers and a
variety of picking styles. As for your other criteria, let your ears be
the judge!

Re: Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:

Thanks Much!, RichL,

I thank you for being the first person to answer me. I really
appreciate your kindness. :-)

I understand your first point which is why my thread is titled
"Best...for the Money." Also keep in mind the group topic, which is
why I posted here.

Regarding your second paragraph: I used to like to do everything
myself. I used to work a lot with my hands and have a background in
woodworking. I understand how to set up a neck as far as bow, action
and intonation but Acoustics are harder (more time consuming) than
electrics.

Most have truss rods so bow(relief) is no problem.

Action: is a little harder because unlike an electric you have to use
shims under the bridge instead of screws.

Intonation is REALLY a problem, because one has to fashion (carve,
mill) a new bridge from plastic, bone, or ivory, unlike an electric
which adjusts with screws as well. And then it's hit and miss, as I
know of no formula to figure offset based upon the measured tonal
deviation. (Fretted versus Harmonics at 12)

So I guess my real question regarding these criteria is that the
guitars neck be capable of easy adjustment. Or rather that the guitar
in question be of such quality initially, that a perfect setup could
be realized with minimum rework done by me. (That it is in fact
capable of being set up properly)

As I already mentioned I realize that even with evidence of a
particular model from a particular manufacturer being of high quality
(meeting my criteria) there are deviance's to be found in a given
lot/production run. But you have to start somewhere and then roll the
dice! I'm looking for that starting point.

As far as my ears go. I'm buying online because I'm handicapped,
bound to a wheel chair and my home so I almost never get out. This is
why I've chosen to trust someone here in the Beginners group thinking
that some kind experienced player could help me with possibilities in
decision making. I was hoping for someone older than me 60's - 70's
in the biz, thinking that if they'd started young and kept up with
current trends they'd be able to better guide me. After all whom do
you expect to be in a beginners group but beginners to ask the
questions and experienced players to answer them. Of course since
I've been here before civilians were capable of accessing the Net
(ARPANET, MILNET, NSF, CSNET) and with USENETS inception I realize
only all to well that you always get trolls (Neurotic's dealing Hubris
as a Self Stroking mechanism.)

Again, thanks for being one of the few altruistic in the group.

If you have any more wisdom to impart my way with respect to
manufacturers and models that may be what I'm looking for, please feel
free. I'm kind of concerned about wide necks because as well as my
fingers being fat they're also short.

Left hand:

Ring finger 3" (measured between ring and middle)
Middle finger 3 1/8" (measured between ring and middle)

Obviously the rest are all down hill from there. ;-)



Later,

Enjoy!



On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:18:08 GMT, "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo,com > wrote:

>Triad <Music@TheCore,net > wrote:
>> Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:
>>
>> 1) Approximately $500.00 max cost (lower if possible)
>> 2) Low Action - Out of box (without visit to local Luthier)
>> 3) Perfect Intonation - Out of box (without visit to local Luthier)
>> 4) Great Box projection (Volume)
>> 5) Broad frequency range
>> 6) Accommodates both fingering and strumming styles
>> 7) Great for people with stubby fat fingers.
>>
>> NO! this is not an attempt to catch a fish, so please divert your
>> narcissistic/anger management diatribe elsewhere. Please, only honest
>> people with good intentions need reply.
>>
>> And before you say anything, I do realize that to find anyone that's
>> familiar with all guitar models made by all manufactures is next to
>> nil, unless their an old Luthier. And of course you'd have to
>> consider variances in assembly lines and peoples personal preference.
>> After all, in some respects the answer might be considered subjective.
>> But some guitar characteristics can be measured, which is covered in
>> my list above.
>>
>> Just a sampling of possibilities, based upon experience, to be taken
>> with a grain of salt!
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> P.S. I was looking at the: Washburn D46SCE Southwest Dreadnought
>> Cutaway Acoustic-Electric Guitar w/case
>
>You're asking an awful lot for $500. Specifically, I'd say your
>"perfect out of the box" criteria are a bit off the wall.
>
>Do yourself a favor. Set aside $50 of the $500 for a good setup. Then
>take the $450 and check out one of the mid-priced Seagull models. I
>mention these specifically because all but a couple of the models have a
>neck width of 1.8" at the nut, which will accommodate fat fingers and a
>variety of picking styles. As for your other criteria, let your ears be
>the judge!
>

Re: Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:

Triad wrote:
> Regarding your second paragraph: I used to like to do everything
> myself. I used to work a lot with my hands and have a background in
> woodworking. I understand how to set up a neck as far as bow, action
> and intonation but Acoustics are harder (more time consuming) than
> electrics.

If you "understood" then you wouldn't make statements
like "Low Action - Out of box (without visit to local Luthier)
and 3) Perfect Intonation - Out of box (without visit to local
Luthier)"...

Those concepts are simply impossible to achieve.
"Low action" depends on the player, playing style,
local humidity and temp, string gauge, personal
preference.

"Perfect intonation" is a physical impossibility.
And no matter how the intonation is set at the
factory in Indonesia, once it gets to you, it
has changed.

> Action: is a little harder because unlike
> an electric you have to use
> shims under the bridge instead of screws.

No, you don't "have to use shims" at all.
In fact, it's a better practice to not
use shims under the saddle.

> Intonation is REALLY a problem, because one has to fashion (carve,
> mill) a new bridge from plastic, bone, or ivory, unlike an electric
> which adjusts with screws as well. And then it's hit and miss, as I
> know of no formula to figure offset based upon the measured tonal
> deviation. (Fretted versus Harmonics at 12)

There is a very simple formula. It's pretty simple math
and physics. Those that "understand how to set up a neck
as far as bow, action and intonation" know how to do it.

> So I guess my real question regarding these criteria is that the
> guitars neck be capable of easy adjustment. Or rather that the guitar
> in question be of such quality initially, that a perfect setup could
> be realized with minimum rework done by me. (That it is in fact
> capable of being set up properly)

If you're capable of doing a setup (it sounds like you're not)
then it doesn't matter how "minimum" or "maximum" the amount
of work is to do. You're talking about the difference between
removing 1/64 inch of material vs perhaps 3/64ths.

Neck adjustment? It's essentially as easy on one guitar
as it is on any other, assuming the guitar has an
adjustable truss rod. If you're challenged by the
adjustment being at the head vs at the body, then
you're in no position to be adjusting it.


> ...Of course since
> I've been here before civilians were capable of accessing the Net
> (ARPANET, MILNET, NSF, CSNET) and with USENETS inception I realize
> only all to well that you always get trolls (Neurotic's dealing Hubris
> as a Self Stroking mechanism.)...

Spare me the personal objection you have to people
that express their opinion.


> Again, thanks for being one of the few altruistic in the group.

This is not a hand holding group. It's purpose is not to
see who is the most altruistic. It's an alt newsgroup.
That means there are absolutely no rules. If you want to
come here, ask ridiculous questions that don't have an answer,
then pre-select the answers you receive based on their "nice
factor" then you won't survive here or on any other alt group.

> ... my
> fingers being fat they're also short.
>
> Left hand:
>
> Ring finger 3" (measured between ring and middle)
> Middle finger 3 1/8" (measured between ring and middle)

Finger length has absolutely no bearing on one's ability
to play the guitar. My fingers are shorter than what
you describe. I play everything from mandolin to upright
bass (tiny to huge scale length and neck width).

Better go root around www ,fr ets,com
to see more than you ever thought there was to
know about setups and guitar physics.

And stop top posting.


Lumpy

In Your Ears for 40 Years
www .LumpyMusic,com

Re: Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:41:38 -0700, "Lumpy"
<lumpy@digitalcartography,com > wrote:

>Triad wrote:
>> Regarding your second paragraph: I used to like to do everything
>> myself. I used to work a lot with my hands and have a background in
>> woodworking. I understand how to set up a neck as far as bow, action
>> and intonation but Acoustics are harder (more time consuming) than
>> electrics.
>
>If you "understood" then you wouldn't make statements
>like "Low Action - Out of box (without visit to local Luthier)
>and 3) Perfect Intonation - Out of box (without visit to local
>Luthier)"...
>
>Those concepts are simply impossible to achieve.
>"Low action" depends on the player, playing style,
>local humidity and temp, string gauge, personal
>preference.
>
>"Perfect intonation" is a physical impossibility.
>And no matter how the intonation is set at the
>factory in Indonesia, once it gets to you, it
>has changed.
>
>> Action: is a little harder because unlike
>> an electric you have to use
>> shims under the bridge instead of screws.
>
>No, you don't "have to use shims" at all.
>In fact, it's a better practice to not
>use shims under the saddle.
>
>> Intonation is REALLY a problem, because one has to fashion (carve,
>> mill) a new bridge from plastic, bone, or ivory, unlike an electric
>> which adjusts with screws as well. And then it's hit and miss, as I
>> know of no formula to figure offset based upon the measured tonal
>> deviation. (Fretted versus Harmonics at 12)
>
>There is a very simple formula. It's pretty simple math
>and physics. Those that "understand how to set up a neck
>as far as bow, action and intonation" know how to do it.
>
>> So I guess my real question regarding these criteria is that the
>> guitars neck be capable of easy adjustment. Or rather that the guitar
>> in question be of such quality initially, that a perfect setup could
>> be realized with minimum rework done by me. (That it is in fact
>> capable of being set up properly)
>
>If you're capable of doing a setup (it sounds like you're not)
>then it doesn't matter how "minimum" or "maximum" the amount
>of work is to do. You're talking about the difference between
>removing 1/64 inch of material vs perhaps 3/64ths.
>
>Neck adjustment? It's essentially as easy on one guitar
>as it is on any other, assuming the guitar has an
>adjustable truss rod. If you're challenged by the
>adjustment being at the head vs at the body, then
>you're in no position to be adjusting it.
>
>
>> ...Of course since
>> I've been here before civilians were capable of accessing the Net
>> (ARPANET, MILNET, NSF, CSNET) and with USENETS inception I realize
>> only all to well that you always get trolls (Neurotic's dealing Hubris
>> as a Self Stroking mechanism.)...
>
>Spare me the personal objection you have to people
>that express their opinion.
>
>
>> Again, thanks for being one of the few altruistic in the group.
>
>This is not a hand holding group. It's purpose is not to
>see who is the most altruistic. It's an alt newsgroup.
>That means there are absolutely no rules. If you want to
>come here, ask ridiculous questions that don't have an answer,
>then pre-select the answers you receive based on their "nice
>factor" then you won't survive here or on any other alt group.
>
>> ... my
>> fingers being fat they're also short.
>>
>> Left hand:
>>
>> Ring finger 3" (measured between ring and middle)
>> Middle finger 3 1/8" (measured between ring and middle)
>
>Finger length has absolutely no bearing on one's ability
>to play the guitar. My fingers are shorter than what
>you describe. I play everything from mandolin to upright
>bass (tiny to huge scale length and neck width).
>
>Better go root around www ,fr ets,com
>to see more than you ever thought there was to
>know about setups and guitar physics.
>
>And stop top posting.
>
>
>Lumpy
>
>In Your Ears for 40 Years
> www .LumpyMusic,com
>
>
>
>
Aaaaawe, did your daddy rattle your pea?

Re: Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:

ProgRock wrote:
> Aaaaawe, did your daddy rattle your pea?

Your post certainly did a lot to help
answer the question.

Are there parts of my post that you think
are incorrect?


Lumpy

In Your Ears for 40 Years
www .LumpyMusic,com

Re: Best Acoustic/Electric guitar for the money considering the following:

ProgRock wrote:
> > Aaaaawe, did your daddy rattle your pea?

Lump:
> Your post certainly did a lot to help
> answer the question.
>
> Are there parts of my post that you think
> are incorrect?

And WTF does "rattle your pea" mean?
Is that like "shake your lentil"?


Lumpy

In Your Ears for 40 Years
www .LumpyMusic,com