Differences between Cheap and Expensive guitars?

[mirkok1]

i know the expensive ones usually look alot nicer but what about tone and playability? i usually pay around $200 for a guitar and then put another $200-$300 into it. so basically my guitars cost me between $400-$500. why pay more? i have a friend who bought a john petrruci music man for $1800, i played it and wanted one. i found a used sterling by music man john petrruci model at a guitar center for $200. all the specs were the same between both guitars with the exception of the pups. i drove 2 hours to the guitar center and tried out the guitar. the frets were ok, it played great and t it sounded good unplugged. i bought the guitar and spent another $150 to upgrade the pups. now when me and my friend compare the 2 guitars they are very very similar in tone and playability. i just just bought a laguna for $160 and it sounds and plays great. i'm going to put in a jb and lil 59 pups and it should be even better. so my question is why does a guitar cost 4 times as much as another when the specs are almost identical? is it a name brand thing or is it because the expensive guitars look nicer?

[the guy who invented fire]

It all comes down to materials and quality of workmanship.

If you are happy with the guitars you play then roll with it.

[9unslin9er]

There is less and less of a difference every day.

I touched on this subject a few days ago regarding American PRS guitars and their SE line and received a ton of hate for it. I was arguing you get more bang for your buck with the SE line than the USA models and therefore it is a better all around instrument.

There is going to be a difference in quality of craftsmanship and materials, however it's not usually something to lose sleep over, especially when a qualified luthier and some cheap aftermarket parts can compensate.

To me at least, a guitar's cost has to be proportionate to the improvement over a cheaper counterpart. If the difference is not drastic, you're simply paying for the brand name and place of manufacture.

*I think Laguna guitars are top notch. People hate on them because they are a Guitar Center brand, but you get high quality specs for very little money. Props to their LE300 and 322 lines. Cheap EVH guitars FTW.

[the guy who invented fire]

I will agree that today's budget guitars are FAR better that those of the 60's, 70's and even 80's but there are still a number of differences in budget guitars and high end guitars.

A lot of guys say something like they went and played a MIM Strat Standard ($400) back to back with a CS Strat ($4000) and they didn't notice any difference and to those people I say 2 things.

-Just because you didn't notice a difference doesn't mean that there was no difference...

-If you truly notice no difference then save yourself $3600 and buy the MIM.

I have guitars that are budget guitars that I have done work to and they are very nice, very playable and sound very good but I do not fool myself into thinking they are as good as my nicer, more high end guitars.

People hate to hear this but most of the time it is true that the more you pay the more you get.

[Gypsyblue]

Most of the difference is in the electronics...the pickups and the pots. Also, sometimes the nut and frets are not finished as nicely in cheap guitars as in more expensive guitars. But I've also played plenty of expensive guitars that if I had bought them, I would had to do recut the nut and do a set up and even level and polish the frets.

If you can find a nice, RESONANT, inexpensive guitar that also plays great you're most of the way there. Replace the pickups, pots and switches with pro quality parts (if you need to) and you should have a professional quality guitar.

It will not, in all likely hood, be the equal in warmth and resonance of a vintage 50's or 60's Gibson or Fender but there's no reason it shouldn't be a pro quality guitar.

[mirkok1]

There is less and less of a difference every day.

I touched on this subject a few days ago regarding American PRS guitars and their SE line and received a ton of hate for it. I was arguing you get more bang for your buck with the SE line than the USA models and therefore it is a better all around instrument.

There is going to be a difference in quality of craftsmanship and materials, however it's not usually something to lose sleep over, especially when a qualified luthier and some cheap aftermarket parts can compensate.

To me at least, a guitar's cost has to be proportionate to the improvement over a cheaper counterpart. If the difference is not drastic, you're simply paying for the brand name and place of manufacture.

*I think Laguna guitars are top notch. People hate on them because they are a Guitar Center brand, but you get high quality specs for very little money. Props to their LE300 and 322 lines. Cheap EVH guitars FTW.

yep i got the le300. swamp ash body, maple neck, locking tuners and it plays great.

[MetalManiac]

Cheap wood, Cheap Paint, cheap electronics, cheap craftsmanship..oher than that, no difference whatsoever.
"Cheap", always means inferior.
A good place to strat if you wann go deep into this, is to google Epiphone Les paul vs. Gibson Les paul.
The paint job on a Gibson vs. an Epi is a very laborious and tedious time consuming job, which accounts for a high opercentage of the guitars cost. Its not only aesthetic, but is functional for tone.
Asian and other import guitars can and do use poor grade , not properly seasoned Asian woods.
The electronics of course are sub standard.
the Asian crafstmanship , though amazing by previosu standards, cannot compare to the high Standards of the Gibson.
An example of this is usingvery dense furniture grade lumber cut itno 4 or 5 pices for the body, then slathering ona notcieably bad and thick poly paint job.
All this having been said, I love my Epi ZakkWylde to death!
It will suffice unless and untill i could ever afford a real Giobson USA Zakk Wylde.
I wouldnt ever look for sweet classic vintage tone playing through a '65 Deluxe Reverb from a cheap import, but when you slather on the high gain, who cares anyway- thats not "tone" per se, its "sound", and the Zkk wyle Epi , MY Korean peavey Rotor , and my Agile 3100 all Plas good and sound damn good!
Hell..even my 150 dolalr chinese SX Callisto sounds real good and plays well with enough gain.

[sosomething]

The difference, as plainly as it can be put:

Cheap guitars are made using materials that are less expensive for the manufacturer to acquire, using methods that are cheaper for the manufacturer to employ, by people who the manufacturer can pay less to do the work.

Expensive guitars are made using materials that are more costly for the manufacturer to acquire, using methods that are more detailed or time-consuming, built by people who command a higher rate to do the work.

That's true across the board.

Apply that logic however you like. Sometimes the two different guitars by each method are very similar, sometimes they aren't. The real difference is a matter of consistency. And that is a subject of some debate.

[jmh151]

The quality if inexpensive guitars has increased greatly since i started playing around 1986. Back then the cheap guitars had poor quality Floyds, poor pickups, back neck pocket routes- there's a reason once companies like Dean, BC Rich and Kramer started importing guitars, that the poor quality diminished their American brand and they went under. These days it's hard to go into a chain like Guitar Center and pick up a guitar that isn't playable- even with issues like Gibson's quality control, Gibson, on a whole, is making less clinkers than they used to.

My boss had a Mexican strat that he got at Salvation Army for $200. Neck was warped, fretboard grimy, and unplayable due to neglect. Within 48 hours I did a setup on it, put in an EMG Gilmour set, and that $200 guitar sounded and played than most guitars up to $1,000.

The difference, IMO, is longevity. I've had many guitars over the years. The inexpensive ones get modded to death, later on sold, and they aren't keepers. The more expensive ones tend to have better wood, have less problems in the long term and are lifetime instruments- my 1986 Les Paul Custom, 1989 Jackson USA Soloist, 2000 EBMM Axis, 1989 Fender Clapton Strat.

My constant complaint is that cheaper (import) guitars tend to purposely use softer fretwire that wears down quickly, so that in a few years you're faced with a decision as to whether it makes sense to put money in to a refret, when a new guitar won't cost that much more- so the companies are ensuring you buy another one of their guitars.

[9unslin9er]

My constant complaint is that cheaper (import) guitars tend to purposely use softer fretwire that wears down quickly, so that in a few years you're faced with a decision as to whether it makes sense to put money in to a refret, when a new guitar won't cost that much more- so the companies are ensuring you buy another one of their guitars.

This I wholeheartedly agree with.

I haven't played a simple cheap import that doesn't use some soft, malleable fret wire. I love my Chinese made guitars but I bend my strings so hard I dread the day I'll have to pay for the stainless steel re-fret.

[mirkok1]

Cheap wood, Cheap Paint, cheap electronics, cheap craftsmanship..oher than that, no difference whatsoever.

so is there a cheap alder and an expensive alder? paint i couldn't care less about and all the pickups and electronics i replace. so basically i should pay an extra $2000 to have a nicer paint job?

[mirkok1]

The quality if inexpensive guitars has increased greatly since i started playing around 1986. Back then the cheap guitars had poor quality Floyds, poor pickups, back neck pocket routes- there's a reason once companies like Dean, BC Rich and Kramer started importing guitars, that the poor quality diminished their American brand and they went under. These days it's hard to go into a chain like Guitar Center and pick up a guitar that isn't playable- even with issues like Gibson's quality control, Gibson, on a whole, is making less clinkers than they used to.

My boss had a Mexican strat that he got at Salvation Army for $200. Neck was warped, fretboard grimy, and unplayable due to neglect. Within 48 hours I did a setup on it, put in an EMG Gilmour set, and that $200 guitar sounded and played than most guitars up to $1,000.

The difference, IMO, is longevity. I've had many guitars over the years. The inexpensive ones get modded to death, later on sold, and they aren't keepers. The more expensive ones tend to have better wood, have less problems in the long term and are lifetime instruments- my 1986 Les Paul Custom, 1989 Jackson USA Soloist, 2000 EBMM Axis, 1989 Fender Clapton Strat.

My constant complaint is that cheaper (import) guitars tend to purposely use softer fretwire that wears down quickly, so that in a few years you're faced with a decision as to whether it makes sense to put money in to a refret, when a new guitar won't cost that much more- so the companies are ensuring you buy another one of their guitars.

very good info, thanks. that answer makes sense and it's something i've never considered. food for thought. i could see paying more for longevity purposes.

[MetalManiac]

so is there a cheap alder and an expensive alder? paint i couldn't care less about and all the pickups and electronics i replace. so basically i should pay an extra $2000 to have a nicer paint job?

Yep, there is a cheap Alder, and impropery seasoned, and 6 pieces glued togther, IF its even Alder at all..but why dimsiss the paint job..relatively as important as the tonewood- just another piece of the puzzle to a quality crafted intrument.

[9unslin9er]

Breatheability is the key.

You'll pay a premium for nitro (and demolish the environment while doing it :-)) but the easier the wood ages, the more resonant it will be.

That's another issue with imports, they just lay on that thick poly, which is a blessing and a curse. You can really hide some imperfections and protect the wood, but you lose a lot of those organic overtones. Guitar sounds more metallic or as the tone-freaks call it - "soul."

I guess you could compromise and go satin - at the risk of an early relic job.

[Mr 9finger]

You should never dismiss the paint job on a guitar. It's almost as important as the wood being used. You could have a 100 year old piece of real Honduran Mahogany, but if it's got 3 coats of filler, 3 to 5 coats of primer, another 5 coats of color, and however many coats of clear to make to it shiny....just how well do you think that century old piece of wood is going to resonate and vibrate?

Quite simply, it won't. That much filler and paint will absorb almost all vibration transferred from the strings.

A quality finish doesn't need 50 coats of whatever to look good, but it does require an immense amount of preparation BY HAND to use minimal amounts of finish. That kind of prep work takes a lot of time from a skilled hand. Skilled hands and time both cost a lot of money in the manufacturing world.

[MetalManiac]

You should never dismiss the paint job on a guitar. It's almost as important as the wood being used. You could have a 100 year old piece of real Honduran Mahogany, but if it's got 3 coats of filler, 3 to 5 coats of primer, another 5 coats of color, and however many coats of clear to make to it shiny....just how well do you think that century old piece of wood is going to resonate and vibrate?

Quite simply, it won't. That much filler and paint will absorb almost all vibration transferred from the strings.

A quality finish doesn't need 50 coats of whatever to look good, but it does require an immense amount of preparation BY HAND to use minimal amounts of finish. That kind of prep work takes a lot of time from a skilled hand. Skilled hands and time both cost a lot of money in the manufacturing world.

Bravo!! I'd like to say one thing. A GOOD Polyurethane paint job can be a excellent alternative to the professional Gibson/Fender Custom Shop Nitro job.
I don't know why, but that seems to be a lost art.
My early 80's Dimarzio ( Dangit! I just said a cussword) Strat body has a very thin and resonant Poly finish.
Easy to ding even, like Nitro.

The old 80' s Japanese made ,I presume, Alder body with an almost wafer thin Poly finish!.
Do not dismiss a proffesional Poly Finish for high grade quality.

[Mr 9finger]

Bravo!! I'd like to say one thing. A GOOD Polyurethane paint job can be a excellent alternative to the professional Gibson/Fender Custom Shop Nitro job.
I don't know why, but that seems to be a lost art.
My early 80's Dimarzio Strat bosy has a very thin and resonant Poly finish.
Easy to ding even, like Nitro.
Quality easoned alsder with a almost wafer thin Poly.
Do not dismiss a preofessinal Poly Finish.

This is why I didn't mention any particular type of finish. A good finish job is a good finish job. PRS does some of the best finishing in the business and they use Poly. I've got a couple bodies that have been painted by close friends and relatives that are both poly. If it came down to it and I could choose the finish from the start on every guitar, I would choose poly as long as it was done right. I love my Gibsons and my Warmoth Strat finished in nitro, but the stuff gets sticky after awhile of playing. I don't have that problem with my American Standard or Korean Dean EVO.

[Myaccount876]

Yep, there is a cheap Alder, and impropery seasoned, and 6 pieces glued togther, IF its even Alder at all..but why dimsiss the paint job..relatively as important as the tonewood- just another piece of the puzzle to a quality crafted intrument.

A very true and important point. Paint jobs make a BIG difference. The paint job pretty much dampens the sound the thicker it gets. You want a thin finish that you can't take off with your nails. Like in the 90s most MIM Fenders were 5-8 pieces of Poplar with a solid and a few millimeters thick poly paint job, which is why they are considered significantly inferior to today's MIM Fenders.

Same with comparing Epiphone's gloss to a Gibson's nitro. A lot of Epiphones actually don't sound as good as Gibsons because of the unnaturally thick finishes that make it sound dead, and the electronics. Like Gibson, sometimes the wood is good sometimes not so good with Epiphone, just more of the 'not so good'.

When I bought my MIM Telecaster, I really considered the finish and wood, so I bough a clear gloss (a little thick on the body, REALLY thin on the neck which is great), surprisingly made out of what appears to be either 2 or 3 pieces of ash. I was lucky and scored big time because it sounds amazing and it great for modding. I plan to put in the vintage ashtray bridge with brass saddles, GFS noiseless pups, and I've already seriously modded the wiring.

[jmh151]

very good info, thanks. that answer makes sense and it's something i've never considered. food for thought. i could see paying more for longevity purposes.

That's why, honestly, in the long run you end up saving more money if you save up and cherry pick the guitar you really want. IMO it says something about a guitar company if you can go out and find 10+ year old guitars of theirs that are still rocking strong .

[MetalManiac]

A very true and important point. Paint jobs make a BIG difference. The paint job pretLike in the 90s most MIM Fenders were 5-8 pieces of Poplar with a solid and a few millimeters thick poly paint job, which is why they are considered significantly inferior to today's MIM Fenders.

Yep, a Gibson Nitro Finish is ( I have heard) is fully 1/3rd the cost of a high grade Gibson guitar, and hence why the much lower price of the lower level fadeds and crap...

.. I sympathise with Gibson for all the bashers who cannot understand this. You gotta figure fully 1/3 the cost of your premium Gibson is the finish alone , and yes it IS superior to any finish, even the best , highest grade POlY, if such a thing even exists besides PRS's Poly crap!