|
|
Joined:
January 2004
Posts: 338
Location: SE Michigan | Just got my January 2006 copy of Acoustic Guitar Magazine. Inside there is a feature article about the C2078 LX. The article is actually pretty complimentary of Ovations, some comments include:
“The guitar brand most responsible for the unplugged rock phenomenon is probably best known for as the most popular plugged acoustic: Ovation”
“Neanderthal-friendly operation” (about the OP-Pro)
“- pleasantly surprised at how organic the Custom Elite sounded despite it’s composite back”
“ – Though it lacks some of the warm resonance of an all-wood acoustic”
“ Best for – Guitarists who need to play on a loud stage and cut through a band mix”
“ Terrific intonation all the way up the neck”
“I must admit I was surprised at how quickly I was won over by the Custom Elite’s clear, balanced tone, especially when using the XLR output jack “ So anyway the AG reviewers seemed to have a lot of good things to say about the Custom Elite, although they definitely steer it towards the concept of former big-hair rockers and “jukebox heroes” who are fond of fog machines, MTV, and Bon-Jovi. I still don’t think the AG crowd consider Ovations a serious unplugged guitar. But hey, any publicity is better than no publicity. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
June 2002
Posts: 863
Location: Central Florida | Originally posted by BrianT:
I still don’t think the AG crowd considers Ovations a serious unplugged guitar. Nope... They sure don't. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 15654
Location: SoCal | The vast majority of their readers don't consider it a serious guitar as well. Remember about a year ago there was a thread reagarding the AG webpage thread on Ovations. Most people were just out and out nasty. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 8307
Location: Tennessee | Most people were just out and out nasty. As is the case most times on this board when mentioning TayGibMar. It's all I scream. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
June 2002
Posts: 6192
Location: Phoenix AZ | Sounds like the AG article was pretty accurate.
If Ovation wants to ever be seriously considered as a warm toned quality acoustic instrument, then the first step is to build one. Build a variation of the FD14 that is acoustic only. Let people install their own Fishmans. Down play the whole plastic back, plugged in, day glow colors, and fig leafs around the bowling ball holes thing. Just build a nice straight acoustic, center hole guitar that sounds as good as the other guys. Dump Kitty, Nicki 6 and Melissa and sign on some real acoustic players. The sad thing is that while you may finally get some notice by AG as a real acoustic instrument of merit, the company will probably go bankrupt in the process. Dave |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2003
Posts: 13984
Location: Upper Left USA | Dave,
You had me until the center hole... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2004
Posts: 234
Location: Phoenix, AZ | Originally posted by Standingovation:
... fig leafs around the bowling ball holes thing So, that's what the epaulets are! I always thought they were like Native American head dress feathers. While I can appreciate the theoretical sound advantage of replacing the single round center hole with the outlying holes, I have never been able to warm up to the epaulet decoration. That's why I have been waiting for a "Q hole or eyebrow" top model. Still keeping my fingers crossed. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2003
Posts: 1922
Location: Canton (Detroit), MI | I'm with ya, Dave......traditionalists gag at the multi-hole configuration, despite the fact it DOES work.
Roger |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 82
Location: Michigan | i guess when almost every guitar you make has a finish option in some form of purple, its kinda hard to take it seriously. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 15654
Location: SoCal | Actually Bobbo, most people on this board are pretty tolerant of other brands....... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10581
Location: NJ | I read the review and thought it was rather good except that he stressed it was better plugged in. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
June 2002
Posts: 6192
Location: Phoenix AZ | Clarification - I did NOT mean to imply that the multihole thing didn't sound good or that Fishman electronics are better than Ovation. My point is that if you want to be accepted by the establishment, then you better look, act, and sound like the establishment. There is nothing wrong with being radically different (maybe "better"), but don't piss and moan that the establishment does not accept you. If you show up at the Republican National Convention wearing flip-flops, you ain't gonna get it. It's your fault not theirs. Dave |
|
| |
|
Joined:
June 2002
Posts: 6192
Location: Phoenix AZ | Originally posted by alpep:
I read the review and thought it was rather good except that he stressed it was better plugged in. That's EXACTLY my point. Build a kick-ass ACOUSTIC ONLY guitar and you won't give anyone the opportunity to say it's better plugged in. The sentence will stop right after "It's a nice guitar." PERIOD |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2004
Posts: 338
Location: SE Michigan | I also thought AG magazine tried to be nice. When you think about it, their bread and butter is ad revenue from guitar manufacturers. Whenever I read their reviews I can't see how they can be honest and objective without pissing off their sales department.
But the longer I hang around this board (and the Ovation company) the more I think that Ovation really isnt very concerned about unplugged tone. The old expression goes "you have to dance with them that brung ya". I think Ovation is sticking close to the typical customer being more of a rocker who likes to plug in and prefers purple guitars.
And in my opinion you will never get that woody resonant tone from a guitar with a lyri-chord back. So why try to be something you're not? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2003
Posts: 9301
Location: south east Michigan | Yes, there is the flame EliteT and some very expressive colors out there. But I would not agree that this means Ovation is unconcerned about unplugged sound. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2003
Posts: 1922
Location: Canton (Detroit), MI | The LXs and the deep contour bowl being representative of that concern.....
Roger |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 82
Location: Michigan | Originally posted by Slipkid:
Yes, there is the flame EliteT and some very expressive colors out there. But I would not agree that this means Ovation is unconcerned about unplugged sound. heh i didnt say that, many acoustic guitar players are a bit snobbish on style and design, as well as sound. i pretty much play acoustic only, and i bought my O because i liked the sound. thats why i didnt buy the other things in my price range too. oh and it had the most beautiful spruce top id ever seen. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2004
Posts: 234
Location: Phoenix, AZ | Originally posted by BrianT:
And in my opinion you will never get that woody resonant tone from a guitar with a lyri-chord back. See, that's what confuses me. The back/sides of a guitar do nothing but reflect back the sound waves generated by the top (sound board). The "tone" is determined by the sound generated by the top and how they're reflected off of the back/sides to project out of the soundhole(s). If the back/sides of a traditional box guitar do not reflect/project ALL of the sound waves generated by the top (many are "lost" in the corners), then they're doing an imperfect job. If we grew up hearing only these "imperfect" sounds (i.e., pre-Ovation), then are we supposed to stick with these imperfect sounds becaue they're all we know? Even further, are we supposed to believe these "imperfect" sounds are what a guitar is supposed to sound like because they're all we knew pre-Ovation?
The logic of this thinking evades me. Please help me understand this. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
June 2002
Posts: 6192
Location: Phoenix AZ | Originally posted by dmkozak:
The back/sides of a guitar do nothing but reflect back the sound waves generated by the top I disagree, but I don't know all the techno-acoustic reasons why. If the back and sides did nothing more than reflect sound, then why wouldn't all manufacturers make the back and sides out of some plastic like material to save cost (no bracing, no wood finishing, no kerfing, no binding, etc.). Why do high end buyers pay huge money for brazillian back and sides vs. indian or mahogany if all it has to do is reflect the sound. Would a wooden box guitar lined in glass sound better then a regular one?
You may have hit on something saying that Ovation is the perfect sound. Maybe it is, and our ears are just conditioned over decades and decades of something else (the Martin woody sound), that we don't recognize it as "perfect". Heck, vegitable puree and a glass of water is technically the "perfect" meal. Who wants to eat it?
Guitar sound is such a complex, highly emotional issue that there is no right and wrong. In the end it comes down to personal preferences. You'll never convince me that Ovation is defacto the perfect guitar sound. You'll also never convince me that it's not. The fact that I play guitar XYZ in no way means that it's "better" than guitar ABC. It's just my choice.
It seems only human nature that we get our panties in a bunch if someone makes a critical comment about our choice of guitar, or makes some uninformed statement as though it was fact. They way I look at it, commenting on my guitar is like commenting on my necktie. "Hey, that's a really ugly necktie". Screw you, I like it.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2003
Posts: 9301
Location: south east Michigan | I can really feel that bowl a-working away when I hold it tight to my ribs. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2004
Posts: 338
Location: SE Michigan | Actually the back in particular has a great deal to do with an acoustic guitar’s tone. The sides have a significant effect as well. In a traditional wooden box guitar the back actually vibrates similar to the top (although much less pronounced). Many players notice a big difference when the back is pressed tight to the player’s stomach or played away from the body.
As far as the woody resonance goes, I am not a luthier or an expert on the subject, But I believe that porous wood structures inside a traditional guitar have a lot do do with absorbing some vibrations while reflecting others. This is why there is a significant difference between rosewood versus mahogany versus maple-backed guitars.
As far as the Ovation sound goes, I don’t mean to criticize it, I like it as well. But if you compare a even the best wood topped Ovation to say a Martin D-28 there is a very pronounced difference, with the Martin producing a much “woodier” tone. One thing about the round Ovation back; because it is domed in shape it naturally is resistant to vibrations compared to a flat back. The domed shape also projects tone forward much more strongly than a traditional wood box guitar, and to many players this is a good thing. The Ovation tone is strong and you often hear remarks such as “piano like” and “consistent up and down the neck”. It is however a different tone.
And back to AG magazine, many players from that genre will settle for nothing less than the woody resonant tones that are produced best from wooden box guitars. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2004
Posts: 234
Location: Phoenix, AZ | Originally posted by Standingovation:
If the back and sides did nothing more than reflect sound, ..... Why do high end buyers pay huge money for brazillian back and sides vs. indian or mahogany if all it has to do is reflect the sound. Because each of these different types/kinds of woods reflect sound differently from one another. That's why a Martin with mahogany back/sides sounds different than the same guitar with rosewood back/sides. Yes, the back/sides do contribute to the sound/tone of a traditional guitar due to the wood's reflective (and to some extent, absorbsion) abilities. If you want to reflect all (or, at least virtually all) of the sound waves generated by the top/soundboard, use a concert shell back, just like symphony orchestras use to project their sound to their audience, and, just like Ovation uses with their round backs. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2004
Posts: 234
Location: Phoenix, AZ | Originally posted by BrianT:
Actually the back in particular has a great deal to do with an acoustic guitar’s tone. The sides have a significant effect as well. In a traditional wooden box guitar the back actually vibrates similar to the top (although much less pronounced). Many players notice a big difference when the back is pressed tight to the player’s stomach or played away from the body. Yes, but are you sure the back/sides are generating sound waves or, simply, flexing in their job of reflecting (with some absorbtion) sound waves?
As far as the woody resonance goes, I am not a luthier or an expert on the subject, But I believe that porous wood structures inside a traditional guitar have a lot do do with absorbing some vibrations while reflecting others. This is why there is a significant difference between rosewood versus mahogany versus maple-backed guitars. Yes, again you're right. Which raises the question of do you want sound waves absorbed by the back/sides? Don't you want to hear all of the sound waves generated by the top/soundboard?
But if you compare a even the best wood topped Ovation to say a Martin D-28 there is a very pronounced difference, with the Martin producing a much “woodier” tone. Or, as the point I'm trying to make here, is this less than complete reflection of the sound waves generated by the top/soundboard a sound we have "learned" to associate with "woodiness"? If we're hearing something less than all of the soundwaves generated by the top/soundboard, why would we think this is acceptable if for no other reason than we have been "programed" to think this over many years of wood box guitar listening?
P.S. There isn't an audio engineer (where's Mr. Baron when you need him) around who would argue a speaker which only reproduces some of the spectrum is superior to a speaker which reproduces all of the spectrum. Yet, guitarists continually argue an acoustic guitar which only reproduces some of the sound spectrum is better than an acoustic guitar which reproduces all of the sound spectrum. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
June 2002
Posts: 6192
Location: Phoenix AZ | Guys, this is pointless (although I do enjoy everyone's differing points of view). The reason there are a zillion brands of guitars is because nobody can agree on what's "best", or even what the definition of "best" is. Line up 100 guitars for me to try and some I will like and some I will not. And it won't be divided by which are wooden boxes and which have plastic backs.
I've said it before - I have some personal notion of what sounds "good" to me. I can't describe it, but I know when I hear it. Without question I have heard Ovation guitars that side by side make some wooden boxes sound like crap TO ME. I have also heard Martin guitars that side by side make some roundbacks sound like crap TO ME.
The PROBLEM (for Ovation) and GOD SEND (for Martin) is the PR. Martin's PR is GOOD that most people will buy them as gospel even if they don't always live up to the hype. Ovation's PR is so BAD that most people dismiss them as plastic junk even though some models are wonderful. As Ovation loving OFC members it's difficult for us to accept the fact that most of the guitar playing world HATES our guitars.
I am resigned to the fact that I (we) can't change the world. I'm very satisfied with my ability to seek out the good sounding Ovation models and not only enjoy playing them, but sharing the experiences here on this board with like minded people. You'll never convince the other 95% of the guitar world that WE are right and THEY are wrong.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2004
Posts: 2487
| It's funny how many times I see reviews and comparisons about how unnatural an Ovation sounds when usually the Ovation they are showcasing is a guitar like an Elite? An Elite is hands down the best rig a stage musician can buy if he or she wants a comfortable, real cool looking, thin bodied, acoustic/electric, that you can plug in, turn up and rock with the best of them with little or no real technical sound knowledge.
Now I know my Adamas 1's can cut the mustard $ for $ anyday with martin or taylor they are so well built. And I do mean dollar for dollar, I can't tell you what a $12,000 Martin sounds like?? and personally I don't care. No instrument is musically worth that to me. I can tell you that a $3,000 taylor was no better in the volume, tone, sustain or overall sound appeal department in comaprison to my 1587-7 and mine was $2,500. And it looks better all day long! And mine plugs in and sounds even better yet with little or no effort! It comes down to a matter of your own personal taste in unplugged acoustic guitar sound.
The deep bodied Ovation's like the A braced Legends and others have a fantastic acoustic sound. Positively nothing at all like an Elite. So if your going to compare a $5,000 Taylor or even a $1,000 Taylor to an Elite! Your not giving the one guitar a fair shake. And that is usually the type of comments I here about Ovations. I agree that Some of the shallow bodied O's do not have the warmth of a traditional guitar. But they were not made for that market nor that kind of challenge. Put a $1,200 Custom Legend up against a $1,200 Taylor in an unbiased sound comparison and I'll bet that Legend will win.
So it is nice to see someone give an Ovation a good review once in a while. It don't happen as much as it should.
As for the points we all seem to try and make ...I agree........It is futile to try and preach this point of view much farther than the choir.
"That's all I have to say about that"
Randy |
|
| |
Ovation C2078 LX review in AG Magazine
