What's more important: sound or playability?

[Eric]

I think my wife at some point asked if it was more important to have a guitar that's easy to play or that sounds good. Sort of a guitar priority list thing. I didn't really know at the time, so I started pondering.

At this point, I'm completely convinced that it's sound. Of course that's within reason -- a guitar has to be fairly playable.

I have trotted out many different guitars when I play with others, looking for something new and fun after using my Agile LP for a long time. 335, tele, metal-type guitars, maybe a few others too. Every time I get to where I think the tone is pretty decent by futzing with my amp, and things are going pretty well. Then I'll pick up the LP and plug in, and the contest is over. The sound of the LP is what gets me every time, and after that I put the others away and just use them at home.

I'm wondering what all of you think is most important in a guitar. Sound? Playability? Something else? Features? Comfort?

[ZMAN]

Eric: Here is another wrinkle for you. I think playability can affect the tone.
One shining example is my ES335. My friend purchased it back in 1990, brand new. He was not much of a player more of a collector and hardly played it. Several times over the years I had the opportunity to have the guitar in my home for years at a time. (A messy divorce where he claimed he had sold his collection to me for 1 dollar) That is another story.
I had the guitar and absolutely did not like it. I felt awful and sounded even worse. Of course I was not much of a player back then.
About 5 years ago he ran into some severe health problems and had to quit work. He started to sell off his guitars and I offered to buy the 335. I had learned a lot about guitars and my playing was a lot better. I also had the services of a fantastic guitar tech.
I took the guitar to him and he found it had never been set up properly from the factory. He worked his magic and now this is probably the sweetest sounding and playing guitar I own. The intonation was way off and the nut had not been cut correctly, plus pickup height and bridge adjustment.
So I feel that the lack of a proper set up and the poor playability affected the tone of the guitar.

[Katastrophe]

To me, it's all related.

A good sounding guitar encourages me to keep playing.

A well set up guitar (for playability) helps me to play cleaner, and sound better.

A comfortable guitar lessens fatigue over time, allowing me to play cleaner, for longer periods.

I don't really need binding or other fancy cosmetic features. Different guitars each have their own quirks, and I tend to adapt to the individual design. Of course, that affects playing, too.

I tend to be a Strat or superstrat kinda guy. You kinda have to fight a Strat a bit more than an LP IMO. For some reason, I tend to play more aggressively on those guitars. On any other style, I tend to be more melodic.

[Iago]

If I'm trying a guitar for the first time, playability comes first, I don't care if it's not the greatest tone right there on tap. You can shape the tone later by changing pickups and other stuff. You just have to feel if the guitar has potential or not.

[Eric]

I tend to be a Strat or superstrat kinda guy. You kinda have to fight a Strat a bit more than an LP IMO. For some reason, I tend to play more aggressively on those guitars. On any other style, I tend to be more melodic.
Can you explain this a little bit for me? I've heard this over and over from people (that you have to fight a strat), but I've never quite understood. I owned a cheap Squier strat as my first electric and hated it.

Also, you're more aggressive on strats or LPs?

[kiteman]

Can you explain this a little bit for me? I've heard this over and over from people (that you have to fight a strat), but I've never quite understood. I owned a cheap Squier strat as my first electric and hated it.

Also, you're more aggressive on strats or LPs?

Difference in the scale lengths.

[Katastrophe]

Kiteman has it. The difference is scale length. A properly set up Strat isn't going to have the effortless playability of an LP, IMO. As a consequence, I tend to dig in a little harder when playing a Strat. The notes "pop" more and sound more aggressive to my ears.

When the guitar is easier to play like an LP, the notes come out smoother, less choppy sounding.

[6stringdrug]

to me its playability first. If a guitar doesnt feel right in my hand, i just cant play my best. And since most of your tone comes from your fingers, i tend to buy on feel more than anything. the "sound" can be changed easy enough through new pickups, amp settings, pedals, etc....but the true tone is in the comfort in your hand. Example, i love the sound of les pauls, but i never play my gibsons. the '59 profile feels like im holding a 2x4, my epis have the '60's profile and just feel plain good to me. stock, there's no comparison, gibbies all the way, but a pickup and wiring upgrade and my '98 epi std will rock toe to toe with any stock LP, at 1/3 the price too! my fenders, ahh, love the C neck, hate the tinniness. fatten up the pickups and crank my tubescreamer, im in heaven. my '06 MIM fat strat is the guitar i pick up anytime im feelin down, 12 bars later...not a care in the world. rock on

:pancake

[markb]

Can you explain this a little bit for me? I've heard this over and over from people (that you have to fight a strat), but I've never quite understood. I owned a cheap Squier strat as my first electric and hated it.

Also, you're more aggressive on strats or LPs?

It's the longer scale giving a bit more tension, the lack of back angle at the neck joint and the tighter fingerboard radius that make Fenders a bit less forgiving imo.
If you want a real fight, play a tele. As well as the usual Fender design, that tone that cuts though everything also exposes your every slip :)

[Tig]

Ya need both, of course.
However, you can usually get around something that lacks playability as long as it doesn't get in the way too much. I remember reading that Jack White likes to have to fight his guitar a little. Same went for Stevie Ray Vaughan and his giant strings.

It has to sound good at least to some degree, no matter what.
So, sound is more important, but ya gotta have both.

[Eric]

Ya need both, of course.
However, you can usually get around something that lacks playability as long as it doesn't get in the way too much. I remember reading that Jack White likes to have to fight his guitar a little. Same went for Stevie Ray Vaughan and his giant strings.

It has to sound good at least to some degree, no matter what.
So, sound is more important, but ya gotta have both.
I think that's roughly my take on it too. They are both important, but I'll take a little less convenience if it means better tone. I actually feel the same way as a listener -- a great sound is more important than great technique and more notes.

[Eric]

It's the longer scale giving a bit more tension, the lack of back angle at the neck joint and the tighter fingerboard radius that make Fenders a bit less forgiving imo.
If you want a real fight, play a tele. As well as the usual Fender design, that tone that cuts though everything also exposes your every slip :)
Gotcha. Interesting points you bring up. Out of curiosity, what does the neck joint angle have to do with playability? Does it have to do with headstock string length and resultant tension or something?

[MAXIFUNK]

For ME if it does not feel good in my hands and how well I can play it.
Who cares what it sounds like. I know a good setup can do an axe wonders
but at this point with my limited skills I do know what I like c, slight V shaped necks and a radius from 9.25 to 12. Although I have picked up a few higher end guitars with falter necks I did like.

Guitars I have tried to like but just don't work for me PRS SE series, Schecter's,
and most supper flat shredder axes necks either to small or too flat.

But I am sure once my guitar level matches my bass playing level neck size won't matter as much. Although I do know that the Ibanez SR necks are by far the best for me so I have found my holy grail for bass. Guitar is not that simple.

[markb]

Gotcha. Interesting points you bring up. Out of curiosity, what does the neck joint angle have to do with playability? Does it have to do with headstock string length and resultant tension or something?

The strings sit higher above the body and allow for more clearance for the right hand. When I tried a few Vintage brand LP copies I couldn't figure out what felt wrong until I saw one on a stand next to an Epiphone and noticed the shallower back angle.

Sound and playability go hand in hand. The finest playing guitar won't get played if it sounds, to quote a sax player I used to work with "like being hit round the ear with a wet haddock" or vice versa. One factor will cancel the other out.

[6stringdrug]

:spank mark b, you hit on the ear,,,,,,,so to speak

[deeaa]

My take is on guitars overall, sufficient quality of parts and materials are the most important thing, and looks the second most important factor, and overall comfort third. Everything else can be changed to liking anyway and are not important.

Playability and sound are both issues easily rectified, provided there is nothing seriously wrong with a guitar, like a warped neck. Playability is simply a matter of adjustment, or in extreme cases some neck shaping and/or small parts changes, while sound in an electric can be changed pretty much entirely with just a change of pickups - again if the guitar is even remotely OK in materials.

So neither are really important to me initially, both can be made just as preferred by the player.

To me playability and sound, then, go hand in hand...I wouldn't suffer either for a second, but work on the issue till corrected.

Funny though, this again sort of touches the subject of guitar superstitions...well all I can say is if someone comes to me and shows me in a blind test they can faultlessly tell a difference in sound, or even playability between, say a $50.000 vintage Les Paul and a current Epi LP when both guitars are adjusted by yours truly - THEN I may start thinking there really are differences to guitars besides their setup and pickups. It just will never happen because these things are so important to guitarists they will never admit it's all superstition to think there are any profound, innate differences between a lump of wood and metal and another like it. Accept it, it's all about the pickup type, scale and construction and especially the amp used, all else is negligible in its contribution to both sound and playability.

[Eric]

Funny though, this again sort of touches the subject of guitar superstitions...well all I can say is if someone comes to me and shows me in a blind test they can faultlessly tell a difference in sound, or even playability between, say a $50.000 vintage Les Paul and a current Epi LP when both guitars are adjusted by yours truly - THEN I may start thinking there really are differences to guitars besides their setup and pickups. It just will never happen because these things are so important to guitarists they will never admit it's all superstition to think there are any profound, innate differences between a lump of wood and metal and another like it. Accept it, it's all about the pickup type, scale and construction and especially the amp used, all else is negligible in its contribution to both sound and playability.
I would personally love to do a blind "taste test" like you mention. I think it would be enlightening to say the least. I'm all about figuring out what actually matters to me with guitars, not brand or "mojo".

[Tig]

I'll have to look for the video from Guitar World, but they did a comparison between a vintage '59 Les Paul with original PAF's and a modern Les Paul with some nice Seymour Duncan '59 SH-1's, and while the new stuff sounded close, there was still an obvious difference. Maybe the older LP's aged wood and relaxed magnets were the main difference. You really could close your eyes and hear it.

[deeaa]

I'll have to look for the video from Guitar World, but they did a comparison between a vintage '59 Les Paul with original PAF's and a modern Les Paul with some nice Seymour Duncan '59 SH-1's, and while the new stuff sounded close, there was still an obvious difference. Maybe the older LP's aged wood and relaxed magnets were the main difference. You really could close your eyes and hear it.

Yes, I have no doubt it would sound a little different - and exactly for the reason mentioned, the relaxed magnets should make a difference. The different/very old woods should make a small contribution as well.

I tend to always be too short about my claims about sound and what affects it :-) I do believe and know that basically any difference does have an impact on guitar sound, be it body wood or whatever...BUT those differences should be and are always something that can be negated or acquired otherwise as well - twist of EQ knob, whatever.

So sure, a brand new pickup sounds a bit different - but all you need to do to achieve the same result is either weaken the magnets artificially, or simply lower guitar volume a touch and/or lower pickups/adjust polepieces.

This isn't to say they don't have an impact - you can't make a Mercedes out of a Yugo for sure, but with some serious customization and air suspension work and such the Yugo might be just as nice a ride, so to speak. On guitars the differences are really very very small and while I don't claim any of these small details have no impact at all, I just say the proportion to which their impact is raised in many people's heads is wayyyy exaggerated...in reality the differences are much smaller or even impossible to measure than players make them to be in most cases.

Still they do matter, sure. That's where the guitar's 'mojo' lies - like in patients who receive placebo and still cure just as well as those getting real medicine and better than those who have none, also players get a feel for certain 'tastes' and such, and even the most minute details may matter to the player, and help them play better. I even know this guy who loved his LP and then broke it's neck - it got fixed so well nobody could see it was once broke, but to the guy the 'mojo' was gone after the wood split. BUT probably it was simply because the repairman did him a 'favor' and also gave it a full setup and fret treatment...and it was no more just the same to play. Just some mechanical adjustment and...pfft. Maybe he liked the frets worn just so and that G string a bit too high just so etc. etc.

But anyway, as always I'm pragmatic and utilitarian, and my view is I can make most any guitar pretty much just as good as any other guitar, given some time to tweak it and maybe change some parts. Still, of course it makes more sense when buying a guitar to seek one that is already set and plays and feels like you want it to, no question about that either. Me, I just get any junker with a straight neck and make it have all the mojo I'll ever need. I see no magic to it, just physics and mechanics. It's a simple machine with limited variables in play.

[Spudman]

Liking a guitar for me starts with feel. If it feels good and plays well then I'm on to the next step which is listening seriously to it. Many guitars I've tried over the years and many I still have feel great and play great but unplugged you might think they were real dogs. However, plugging them in and turning some knobs on the amp showed me that they were going to be good guitars. I think with electrics, because you do have the ability to electronically alter them via the amp, booster, eq etc., it's easier to come up with a winner rather than as with an acoustic guitar. Acoustics need to sound good from the start.

For me I'll always start with playability and then hope that I'm pleasantly surprised with the acoustic sound as well as the plugged in sound.

[deeaa]

Liking a guitar for me starts with feel. If it feels good and plays well then I'm on to the next step which is listening seriously to it. May guitars I've tried over the years and many I still have feel great and play great but unplugged you might think they were real dogs. However, plugging them in and turning some knobs on the amp showed me that they were going to be good guitars. I think with electrics, because you do have the ability to electronically alter them via the amp, booster, eq etc., it's easier to come up with a winner rather than as with an acoustic guitar. Acoustics need to sound good from the start.

For me I'll always start with playability and then hope that I'm pleasantly surprised with the acoustic sound as well as the plugged in sound.

Well that's pretty much the polar opposite of mine :-) I don't care if it's a dog to play because I know I can make it play like buttah anyway...but it has to be healthy and solid to be worth working on. Loose/soft and crappy woods > no matter how good it is to play, it's junk.

[jpfeifer]

This is a great question about tone versus playability. For me, the tone has to be there first. That's most important, then playability is second. I can tollerate a less-than-easy-to-play guitar if it delivers a inspiring tones. If playability were all that mattered, then I'd never pick up my acoustic. (Martin would have never sold many of those old D-28's. A lot of those were horrible to play, but man do they sound good, especially the older ones).

I've even passed on some guitars that played way better than the ones that I bought, simply because I didn't like the tone of these better-playing ones. For example, I've never liked the way PRS guitars sound even though I think that they are the most well-built, most beautiful, best playing guitars ever made. I don't know what it is, but I've never liked the tone, other than their hollow-body ones that I can't afford :-)

For that matter, even Strats tend to fight you when you play them. You have to get more physical with them as compared to a Les Paul. But Strats have a certain tone that you just want to coax out of the guitar, even though it takes a little more effort due to the longer scale length.

--Jim

[markb]

This is a great question about tone versus playability. For me, the tone has to be there first. That's most important, then playability is second. I can tollerate a less-than-easy-to-play guitar if it delivers a inspiring tones. If playability were all that mattered, then I'd never pick up my acoustic. (Martin would have never sold many of those old D-28's. A lot of those were horrible to play, but man do they sound good, especially the older ones)...
--Jim

And I think we should also mention 50s Gretsches here, Thin frets, usually way too tall, shifty bridges, badly cut nuts. A player's nightmare but boy they sound good. Rickenbackers are pretty much the same, the 12s have 12 strings crammed into a nut that's narrower than a Tele, not a luxurious experience but, if you want that sound...

OTOH I've never come across a Fender Strat (or a good copy) that I couldn't get to play well. OK, they might still put up a bit of a fight but still nicely playable instruments for my tastes. Bigger necks with a tighter radius just fight back a bit more.

The worst sounding "good" guitar I ever owned was a Tokai Tele which just refused to sound even remotely like a good T-type. I blame the dull pickups to some extent but more the thin bridge plate and the wimpy cast saddles. It was a very playable guitar if you could be bothered with it but didn't give anything back even through some nice vintage Fender amps. I replaced it with a MIM strat with an oddly deep U neck profile which was pretty good with a change of pickups if a bit of a challenge to play.

I'm rapidly coming round to my ideal being a Strat or Tele with a "modern C" or "soft V" (like on some CIJs) profile. If pushed I'd take the "modern C". It just fits best.

[Eric]

If playability were all that mattered, then I'd never pick up my acoustic.
That's a very good point.


I've never liked the way PRS guitars sound even though I think that they are the most well-built, most beautiful, best playing guitars ever made. I don't know what it is, but I've never liked the tone, other than their hollow-body ones that I can't afford :-)
I've heard that complaint a few times before. Seems strange to me that it's such a common complaint for a high-end guitar like PRS, but it is what it is. I've never played one before.

[kiteman]

That's a very good point.


I've heard that complaint a few times before. Seems strange to me that it's such a common complaint for a high-end guitar like PRS, but it is what it is. I've never played one before.

Pretty much the same for Carvins. Well built but stiff sounding. I don't know about mine but they sounded ok to me. Maybe I'm not that discriminating.

[Tig]

Pretty much the same for Carvins. Well built but stiff sounding. I don't know about mine but they sounded ok to me. Maybe I'm not that discriminating.

I wonder if PRS's and Carvins just need their pickups replaced with perhaps some Duncan 59's or Gibson Burstbuckers? I'm just mentioning humbucker models here for the sake of argument.

Who would want to change pickups on a $1800+ Carvin or a $2400+ PRS? You'd think at that level, you'll never need to change anything, unlike a $350 Epiphone, but why not if it would make the guitar live up to it's real potential?!

Just sayin'... :notme

[kiteman]

The Carvin pups are quite decent and better priced. My Bolt is the only one still with Carvin pups, C22B and C22N (and AP11). They're classic sounding like JB and '59.

I have a set of Carvin Holdsworth pups on my BD guitar. Very paf sounding.

I have a set of NOS Carvin M22T and M22V. Made in the 80s with red bobbins and black bezels. I guess it's modern sounding but the neck pup (M22V) is the sweetest I've heard. I had them in my DC127 which made them bright but I moved 'em to the BD with mahogany body. They sound better in the 'hog.

My DC127 now have Dimarzio D'Activators. It even had SD Blackouts before I went back to passives. I already lost count how many pup swaps I did. :)

[hubberjub]

Sound and playability are not nearly as important as price. The more expensive the guitar the better it is. That's why I always pay more than sticker price for everything I buy. That way mine is always better than someone else who has the exact same model. It all comes down to simple economics.

[Eric]

Sound and playability are not nearly as important as price. The more expensive the guitar the better it is. That's why I always pay more than sticker price for everything I buy. That way mine is always better than someone else who has the exact same model. It all comes down to simple economics.
I like the way you think. I enjoy buying and playing very bad guitars...

[Tig]

Sound and playability are not nearly as important as price. The more expensive the guitar the better it is. That's why I always pay more than sticker price for everything I buy. That way mine is always better than someone else who has the exact same model. It all comes down to simple economics.

Man, do I have some deals for you! I've taken cheap guitars and upgraded them... Not with parts of anything useless like that. No sir, I've upgraded the price. That's right. No need to go to the guitar shop when I can fleece, um, help you right here. :D

[MichaelE]

I'll sell you this one for $7500. That way you'll be sure to have a better one than even Buckingham.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h146/boeing722/TM1000351.jpg

[hubberjub]

I'll sell you this one for $7500. That way you'll be sure to have a better one than even Buckingham.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h146/boeing722/TM1000351.jpg

The pickup's crooked on that Turner. Your asking price of $7500 seems a little off. Will you take $9000 plus $250 for shipping? If so, we have a deal. You will take a two party out of state bad check, right?