Looks vs Sound?

Think of your two favorite acoustic guitars, past or present, that you have owned.....when deciding which were the best all-time, what percentage was looks, and what percentage was sound?

UPDATE:



OP here.....after reading all of the NGDs the last few weeks the question came to me this morning at work, so I posted it, got busy at work and forgot all about it, or I would have chimed in a couple of times about the great answers.....the thread did "drift" a little, but that's cool, it's been a good discussion about favorite guitars.....when I said the two best acoustic guitars you've ever owned I pretty much assumed we would all think of the ones that sounded, played, and looked the best.....and I was wanting you all to put aside play ability for the moment and just give percentages on sound and looks, and have them add up to 100%.....but I like play ability thrown into the mix too.....so let's continue with two answers.....mine would be: Answer #1..Two Parts... Sound 80% Looks 20%.......Answer #2..Three Parts... Sound 55% Play ability 30% Looks 15%............give that a shot, and continue the fun!

Given only those two characteristics of an acoustic guitar . . . sound, 100 percent.

Good looks are simply a bonus, imo.

I'm with geoguy. Given only those two categories of judgement, it's a musical instrument so sound is paramount. I have to ad one additional category, which would be "playability" which is usually a combination of size, shape, scale length and setup. Some guitars are just easier and more comfortable to play. That factors right up there with sound. At times I'll sacrifice a bit of sound for a guitar that's easy to play. I've never owned an ugly guitar so I don't feel too influenced by looks.

Aesthetics matter a lot to me, since to some extent I view guitars as a bit of fine art, and I know what I like when I see it. But the criteria that carries the most weight for me is playability, which is not in your equation. If I can't pick an instrument up & feel comfortably at home, then there's no point in owning it.

My breakdown would approx be: Playability 40%, Tone 35%, Appearance 25%

But I reserve the right to shift that around, based on any given instrument, at any given moment in time!

As Guild has proven to me over the years it is possible to have a visually striking instrument that has Amazing tone. I think the Guild Traditional Series guitars such as the F50, D55's, F512's, and most recently for me the JF100-NT-CRV are extremely Beautiful and Classy instruments (or you could say Flashy) in appearance and their quality of tone to my ear is not matched by any other guitars. By playing these guitars I don't have to choose as the tone and appearance are equal.

Bottom line is if I am spending a significant amount of money on a guitar that I am wanting as a lifetime keeper it better Look stunning and sound Amazing. I see no reason to settle for anything less in either category. I can't change the fact that I am greedy :greedy_dollars: and want the best of both aspects in one instrument.:triumphant:

TX

Sound is key to me and I have owned many guitar looking better or worse.But for resale looks matter, as I have sold many a great sounding guitar and many look a nick or a scratch or a well repaired crack and make a deal breaker.

Best,

Rick

For me, for sure it's sound. I don't find for me personally, that there's a significant difference in playability among the guitars I've owned and played. That being said, I'm an average player at best and don't do a lot of work up high on the fingerboard.

I will have to admit that over the last 3 or 4 years appearance has become a pretty important factor for me as well. I don't fall into the "cork sniffer" category but still I like a guitar that looks classy and doesn't have a ton of playwear. I guess the other factor that comes into play for me for sure is price. I can put up with a ton of playwear if the price is right.

Lastly, all playwear is not created equal. It's much easier for me to accept dings and scuffs on a $700 D 25 than it is on a $2k DV 72 for example.

Now, after reading everything I wrote it's clear I don't have a clue as to what my priorities are. Thanks so much for pointing out yet another one of my shortfalls.

rule number one, you have to look good!

now what looks good? that is a matter of opinion. it does not necassarily have to cost a fortune, or anything at all.

of course you have to sound good as well, but that is not rule number one.

im sure some of u disagree with me wholeheartedly. take it for what it is...lookin good sure never hurt anyone!

davismanLV said:

I'm with geoguy. Given only those two categories of judgement, it's a musical instrument so sound is paramount.

Click to expand...

Yep, ditto that.

davismanLV said:

I have to ad one additional category, which would be "playability" which is usually a combination of size, shape, scale length and setup. Some guitars are just easier and more comfortable to play. That factors right up there with sound.

Click to expand...

Ditto that too.
The D25 was originally selected for playability in terms of the neck and setup. I knew I could make it sound good although it did surprise me with just how good it got.
But even though the D25's the top performer in the family and is the favorite even with some finish dings, the F65 gets most of the play time now for the comfort factor.

richardp69 said:

Now, after reading everything I wrote it's clear I don't have a clue as to what my priorities are. Thanks so much for pointing out yet another one of my shortfalls.

Click to expand...

You can depend on us buddy. :biggrin-new:
I should also disclose that while I now give the F65ce most of my playing time, I originally bought it because it was top of-the-line Guild bling at an amazing close-out price, and it had a built-in pickup and cutaway, but I actually could not play it for the first couple of years.
I knew it when I tried it, and I told myself, "I'll go home tonight and sleep on the cost. If it's still there in 2 days it's a sign from God".
I actually had to learn new technique because it was so thin and different from the dreads I'd been playing for so long.
A clear case of buying something primarily for looks (I had no doubts it would sound great based on my experience with my D25), and knowing I'd have to learn new skills to handle it.

Doing what I do for a living, I have to admit that looks DO play a part in what I use ON STAGE. However, they have to sound good and I have to be able to play them comfortably too...which for ME means the bigger guitars.

I do Johnny Cash and Neil Diamond tribute shows, and in the span of their careers, they each played DOZENS of different guitars of varying shapes, colors and sizes...but for the longest span of their popularity, it seems they both were more closely identified with black acoustic guitars. (Neil with his Gibson Everly Bros J-180 and Epi Signature SQ-180 Jumbos and Martin dreads, and Cash with his black Martin, Fender and earlier Gibson EJ-200 SB Jumbo.)

So, to approximate the overall look, a black Jumbo fit the bill for both I tried the Epiphone EJ-200, which had the LOOK, but never had the sound nor the feel, and I never "bonded" with the guitar. I had a black Guild D5, but it felt like a "student sized guitar", just too small. Then I found the black Guild Corona JF-30 and that's the one! Looks, playability, sound, feel...everything! (And on ME it looks like a SQ or 180 sized guitar anyway)

For my original stuff, and some of the country-ish stuff I do, the N.H. F-50 w/DTAR is my go-to guitar. Looks, SOUND, playability...it's ALL there! (After I get it set up, the G-41 will fit that bill easily as well!)

For the guitar that I have around the house, in its stand near me at all times, for learning songs, writing and playing with ideas, my trusty blonde R.I. JF-30. It looks fine, sounds great, plays easy.

So, I'd have to say...for live shows its 50/50...looks AND sound.

For home or studio...sound and playability.

Why not also say sound structure and condition.

I could care less by looks.

"rule number one, you have to look good!
now what looks good? that is a matter of opinion. it does not necassarily have to cost a fortune, or anything at all.
of course you have to sound good as well, but that is not rule number one.
im sure some of u disagree with me wholeheartedly. take it for what it is...lookin good sure never hurt anyone!"
----mavuser


"I tell you this dahrling, it is better to look good than to feel good....and yooou looook mahhhhrvelous!"
---"Fernando"

Looks are obviously subjective... but so is sound/tone. The best tone for blues is not necessarily the best tone for folk ballads or Celtic music or..., and vice versa. Sometimes the most versatile tone is not necessarily the best...

I've got 3 limited edition DV-7Xs from the 90s.

If I was to chose for tone alone, I'd pick my DV-72 MK (malachite), tho' the other two aren't far behind. Choosing for looks, it might be a toss up between the DV-73 and turquoise DV-72 (love the inlay on the 73, but the spruce on the 72 is amazing).

But.... if misfortune required that I had to let all but one of my herd go, I think I would have to keep my '72 D-35. It's beat to heck, needs a neck reset and more... but it's been with me thru thick and thin for nearly 44 years.

Hoping I never have to make such a decision...

My Show Ponies = JF55 & F512
My Cinderella = D25

All sound great, love 'em all

I have a quirk about headstocks. They have to look "right" for me to hit Buy It Now. I love big, wide headstocks. I do not own a "snakehead" Guild, and never have. I know I am missing out on some great instruments, but I was imprinted on a '73 Guild D-35 in high school, and that is how I see a Guild headstock in my mind.

Now, I won't throw out my Orpheum, or my Huss and Daltons, simply because their headstocks are narrower, because they sound great and have superb playability.

But when it comes to traditional Guilds, I am a "paddlehead" headstock guy all the way! Having said that, I have liberated a number of paddlehead Guilds over the past five years because they either did not deliver the sound I was after, or they did not fit me or my playing style.

This is an interesting thread. The different viewpoints all sound right.

For myself, I would probably consider sound and playability most important. But, I tend to be anal about my possessions; cars, tools, guitars all still look good. I see nothing wrong with washing and waxing my less than pristine 12 year old "beater" Ranger - go ahead and snicker. My D40 and DV52 are pampered.

That being said, I really would like to have one great "player" guitar, one that I wouldn't be afraid to take out when the house is loaded with people, kids (and dogs) are running around, cocktails are flowing and all is happy mayhem.

That definitely would not be my "wanna" F412, which would only be brought out when the Karma was right. But a less than pretty, great sounding and easy playing guitar would be a good thing to have.

OK, after all that rambling, I guess I'm back to "sound and playability most important".

OP here.....after reading all of the NGDs the last few weeks the question came to me this morning at work, so I posted it, got busy at work and forgot all about it, or I would have chimed in a couple of times about the great answers.....the thread did "drift" a little, but that's cool, it's been a good discussion about favorite guitars.....when I said the two best acoustic guitars you've ever owned I pretty much assumed we would all think of the ones that sounded, played, and looked the best.....and I was wanting you all to put aside play ability for the moment and just give percentages on sound and looks, and have them add up to 100%.....but I like play ability thrown into the mix too.....so let's continue with two answers.....mine would be: Answer #1..Two Parts... Sound 80% Looks 20%.......Answer #2..Three Parts... Sound 55% Play ability 30% Looks 15%............give that a shot, and continue the fun!

This one's got the tone, and I must admit I gravitate toward guitars that have some history.

Dan

For me it's a combination of sound, playability and looks. Has to hit me in all 3 categories.