Starfire III vs. X-170

mad dog

Gone But Not Forgotten
Gone But Not Forgotten
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
1,269
Reaction score
240
Location
Montclair, NJ
Can anyone enlighten me on this ... other than the different cutaway styles, how do these two models differ? I have a SF III with P-90s and love it. Have always been curious about the humbucker version of the SF III, and the X170.

Thanks
MD
 

AcornHouse

Venerated Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
10,216
Reaction score
7,226
Location
Bidwell, OH
Guild Total
21
The SFIII is a hollowbody, the X-170 has a block under the bridge to combat feedback. I don't know about others, but my X-170 with HB-1s has a very warm, smooth tone that really works best for Jazz. I do have flat wounds on it, but even when I first got it with round wounds, it didn't really have a rock voice. The Guildsby equipped ones may be different.
 

shihan

Senior Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
796
Location
Ventura CA
I respectfully disagree (slightly) with AcornHouse, yes the 170 is a great jazz guitar, the neck PU is smooth and mellow, voiced for jazz. The bridge PU really has some bite; sounds great for country or country jazz. The middle position gives you a wide tonal palate which works well for just about anything, blues especially. The bridge block allows you to turn up without feedback.
While it is a great jazz guitar, you are right there AcornHouse, it is pretty versatile guitar.
 

mad dog

Gone But Not Forgotten
Gone But Not Forgotten
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
1,269
Reaction score
240
Location
Montclair, NJ
I'm just going to have to try an X-170. I'm no jazz player per se, but do love those tones. At the same time, it's the versatility to cover blues, more primitive types of early rock and roll that would be even more useful. Especially with outboard reverb and a little delay. Might not know til I try.

The appeal in both the SF III and X-170 is in part that modest depth. I had an X-500 which seemed so large. Didn't get too comfortable with it. So wondering how the slimmer body guilds with HBs compare.
MD
 

AcornHouse

Venerated Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
10,216
Reaction score
7,226
Location
Bidwell, OH
Guild Total
21
I think it also matters if you've got a wood bridge (mine's ebony), or an aluminum bridge for the bigsby. The wood is a mellower sound.
 

shihan

Senior Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
796
Location
Ventura CA
Chris, I think the flatwounds make a big difference. I mostly use my 170 for chord melody, but I took it to a jam session on a whim to see how it sounded with a rhythm section; I was pretty surprised how good it sounded for rock and country stuff. I did use an OD pedal to dirty up the tone some, but just a little.
I do completely agree that the neck PU is voiced for jazz.
 

GAD

Reverential Morlock
Über-Morlock
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
22,594
Reaction score
17,815
Location
NJ (The nice part)
Guild Total
112
I've owned both. The X170 is a much thicker guitar, and has a very different feel and tone than a SFIII. I've owned both, and the X170 had a very different tone, though mine had the single-coil switch which added some nice options.

The X170 is much heavier than the SFIII. The SFIII is ridiculously light compared with just about any other Guild I've owned. My SFIII howled and screamed with even the slightest chance for feedback, while the X170 was very well behaved. The SFIII was more lively feeling to my hands, probably for the same reasons (thinner, no soundpost, etc.).

My X170 was comparable to my Gretsch SSLVO, but the Guild was heavier while the Gretsch had a more lively feel. The X170 felt like a heavy Guild Acoustic. I *loved* the neck on the X170, though.
 
Top