Has anyone played........

[rpe]

either a Gibson J-185 EC and/or a Guild F47RCE? I can't find either one in this Wild West town of ours and would like to hear about the similarities, differences, problems, etc.

thanks,

rpe

 

[frist44]

Both are along similar lines. The guild has a very thin body which makes it much more geared toward live sound plugged in. The gibson J-185EC sounds significantly better played unplugged and miced. It also has a fishman blender system that is ideal for live situations. However, the price different probably has alot to do with it. Overall, i think the gibson would be a much better guitar to have in the arsenal assuming price was no issue.

Hope this helps,
Brandon

 

[rpe]

thanks Brandon. How would you compare the workmanship?

rpe

 

[FZmontanaDF]

I played the guild at my local music store. IT has a really nice soudn, though the strings are dead. Looks nice too.

 

[frist44]

I would give the workmanship edge to the gibson. It looks alot more intricate up close. Looks obviously aren't the major factor in buying the guitar, however it's probably justified by the extra $800. What are you looking to do with it; record, play live, or just all around???

Brandon

 

[frist44]

Might add that i'm in the same boat you are and both of those guitars were at the top of my list. However my objective right now is looking for the guitar that'll translate the best to tape during recording. Not so much live or even with a group, although they often go hand-in-hand. Both those guitars have since come of the list due to the quality of the taylors and martins in the same price range. But again it depends what your main objective is with the guitar. I would consider both the gibson and guild to be at the top of the list if i were looking for the perfect live guitar.

Brandon

 

[rpe]

Thanks frist44 and FZ,

I'll be doing three things with it:

1) recording with it (at home). I currently am using an Alvarez nylon string (with on-board pre-amp & piezo) and a Yamaha steel string (also with pre-amp and piezo). They both sound OK but I'm really looking for something fuller and richer sounding.

2) playing for special services in church. I'd like to be able to get sufficient volume without an amp in our fairly small sanctuary.

3) fingerpicking on the back porch entertaining the quail and myself.

thanks for your input,

rpe

 

[philboyd studge]

Why not look at a Taylor?

 

[rpe]

why not look at a Taylor?

IMHO Taylors sound a little "tinny" to me and lack the warm and bottom end of say a Martin or a Gibson. Admittedly I've only played a few Taylors so maybe I should give them more of a try. Again, finding these types of guitars where I live is difficult. I occassionally travel to Baltimore and Washington DC where I frequent the guitar shops when I'm there. Closest quality guitar shops to here are Tucson (4 hours) or Albuquerque (3 hours).

thanks for your responses,

rpe

 

[Hard2Hear]

I played a J185 for a year, a few years ago. It was red, cutaway, built in electronics, looked like the one in the dixie chicks video back then. That was the worst acoustic guitar I haev ever owned. If you dont want "tinny" why would you ever look at this guitar?? The thin bodies do not lend themselves to a deep sound. The sound you are looking for exists in a Taylor 814ce, or if you want to spend less, a Taylor 414ce.

I've been around the block on acoustics.... I dont have anything against Gibsons, I love my Les Paul, but that acoustic sucked.

H2H

 

[Hard2Hear]

oh, by the way, my 2 other acoustics right now are a Martin DM and a Martin D-18, just in case you thought I didn't know what "warm" Martin sound is.

H2H

 

[rpe]

H2H.......

that's exactly why I am asking about these guitars, to get some feedback. I didn't realize the Gibson was so thin. J as in Jumbo usually doesn't mean thin. I'll try out more Taylors when I get the opportunity. I don't doubt you know what the warm sound means. I experienced myself while playing about 50 different Martins at Gruhn's in Nashville.

thanks for your input!

rpe

 

[frist44]

I wouldn't really consider the gibson a thin body, however i do think the sound produced is more along those lines. For some reason it doesn't have the fullness of a taylor. I think you should probably give some of the taylor's another chance. If you're planning on recording at all, I would seriously disregard the gibson. I think the martin also lends itself to a warm sound because of the sometimes overwhelming chracteristics of the low end. Taylor's have a much more balanced sound, so naturally playing them one next to the other will lead you to believe the martin is warmer, due to lack of high end. Again, if you want warmth on a recording, that's what eq is for, but you can't produce what's not there to begin with so i would go for the taylor. I don't think you'll ever feel like you missed out with it.

Brandon

 

[frist44]

here's a picture of 2 gibsons. They look much thicker than most acoustics.

 

[rpe]

thanks frist44...

good info. Thanks for the photo. The one in the background sure doesn't look thin to me and I can't tell about the one in the foreground. I'll take your word for the Taylors.

rpe

 

[Hard2Hear]

Apparently there are 2 different models...I looked at the Gibson website, and there is an updated 2002 catalog, which has different models in it. Still, there is a full deepness and a shallow deepness guitar available from them. I was remembering after thinking about this thread, and the other reason I really don't like Gibson acoustics too much is that they seem to be VERY heavy and have VERY thick tops on them that are not resonant anough for me. Just what I like, apparently lots of people atill play them

H2H

 

[rpe]

ok.

thanks H2H. After visiting the Taylor website and reading some reviews I'm getting more and more interested in them. I'm thinking that the cedar top of the 514ce may also contribute to a real mellow sound.


rpe