Cracked Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 I'm slowly starting to become a member of this guy's cult. http://www.zacharyguitars.com/090506pics.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitefly SA Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 small body equals small weight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundAt11 Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 It looks a lot like Canary wood or possibly Goncalo Alves, but it could be some other oddball South American wood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattia Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 (edited) Going by the description (light, soft, styrofoam-like), I'm guessing not Goncalo or Canarywood... No clue what it could be, though. Zachary's sales babble/philosophy does relatively little for me, I gotta say. It's still full of hot air, particularly stuff like the oh-so-greatness of his headstock design (which is flawed all over the damn place, IMO....) Edited May 13, 2006 by Mattia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_the_damned Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 I agree with the diagnosis of Canarywood. Zachary's sales babble/philosophy does relatively little for me, I gotta say. It's still full of hot air. I agree with this too particularly stuff like the oh-so-greatness of his headstock design (which is flawed all over the damn place, IMO....) like not straight string pull off the nut, no 'wings' so you can't use that type of stand and with the odd body shapes that leaves you with no stands that you can use! plus it looks like a knock off of the 'other' Fender headstock shape! better stop being critical and go off and do something else before I get in trouble! Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Well, I love the look of that headstock...good point about the wall hangers though, I hadn't thought of that one. As for the rest, well, I enjoy reading luthier sites, and alll the cool ideas and innovations people come up with, but I take a lot of their sales pitch as just that...or at best it's artist-speak. I'm actually beginning to believe that, as far as electric guitars are concerned, there's a huge amount of leeway in terms of design --and even fit and finish-- before a guitar becomes unplayable. Makes you wonder why acoustic guitar designs seem so rigid...my guitar teacher has 15 acoustics...and they all look pretty much the same! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattia Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Well, I love the look of that headstock...good point about the wall hangers though, I hadn't thought of that one. As for the rest, well, I enjoy reading luthier sites, and alll the cool ideas and innovations people come up with, but I take a lot of their sales pitch as just that...or at best it's artist-speak. I'm actually beginning to believe that, as far as electric guitars are concerned, there's a huge amount of leeway in terms of design --and even fit and finish-- before a guitar becomes unplayable. Makes you wonder why acoustic guitar designs seem so rigid...my guitar teacher has 15 acoustics...and they all look pretty much the same! The reason's simple; an electric guitar is a plank with pickups. Get the neck right, the fretting right, solidly anchor the lot, and plonk in some pickups, voila, tone! Shape probably has some influence on sound insofar as mass distribution filters strings differently, but so much can be counteracted by choice of amplifier (the other full half of the guitar's sound. At LEAST) that you can get away with a lot. Fit and finish never defined how well a guitar sounded, as long as the construction is solid. How sloppy your binding is is pretty irellevant, but your fretwork will affect playability. As for acoustics..there are plenty of different shapes and sizes, but the differences tend to be more subtle. The reason's simple; drastically alter the outline, and you alter the sound. Significantly. Brace differently? Done. Size/basic shape is a major defining factor, followed by construction and topwood choice; Dreds sound like Dreds, no matter if they're rosewood or mahogany. Parlours? Different ballgame. The beauty of acoustics lies in exploring the limits of the design itself, working on the details, and aesthetic touches here and there. The form defines the sound, after all, and everything - tone, volume, amplification - is defined by the guitar itself. If you're building for stage use, there are good arguments for simply making solidbodies (See Rick Turner's designs), and doing away with the complexities of building a braced box. I think the major issue is that most of the acoustic guitar world is making Martin clones. Very close to the originals. A few Gibson clones. And a very few more original, unique designs, with Taylor leading the pack in terms of 'big factory' builders. Bound by tradition, and by the fact that changing shapes changes sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.