CG171SF's tone

Costs are rising and times are tough.
Please consider a donation to keep this
place going.

Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.

This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.

We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.

CG171SF's tone

You are logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >>Discussions >>General >>

Page: [1]

Message

<< Newer Topic Older Topic >>

HolyEvil

Posts: 1240
Joined: Nov. 6 2008
From: Sydney, Australia

CG171SF's tone

Hi guys, I found this on youtube, it's supposedly played on a CG171SF. Please tell me the Yamaha don't sound like that in real life and it's tone is just due to the low quality recording.
or does the Yamaha actually sound exactly like that in real life!?!

cheers

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 21 2009 7:44:15

ChiyoDad

Posts: 151
Joined: Jun. 30 2007
From: San Francisco Bay Area

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to HolyEvil)

Don't you have one?

There've been a number of clips uploaded on this forum with the CG171SF. Look for those.

_____________________________

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 21 2009 9:01:32

Arash

Posts: 4495
Joined: Aug. 9 2006
From: Iran (living in Germany)

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to HolyEvil)

Not that the Yamaha sounds like a 5000$ Guitar, but sorry , a video from a guy who is playing with a pick some jazzy things is not the right way to find out if a flamenco guitar sounds good or bad.
Low quality is another point but not in this case.

I bet this guy would exactly sound like this with a Conde A26 either.

Flamenco guitars are just not the right guitars for the style this guy is playing (not that he is playing bad or something)

However, i had a Yamaha and it sounds Ok., nothing special but also not too crappy. For the price it is a good guitar to start with.

_____________________________

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 21 2009 9:09:08

HolyEvil

Posts: 1240
Joined: Nov. 6 2008
From: Sydney, Australia

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to ChiyoDad)

mine is arriving in middle of march.. that's why...
i'll search for the audios.. =)

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 21 2009 15:21:41

alex_lord

Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2 2006
From: Vancouver, B.C., Canada

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to HolyEvil)

If you hop into my "Picado and right hand position" thread, I am playing the Yamaha model in question. :-)

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 21 2009 16:31:52

HolyEvil

Posts: 1240
Joined: Nov. 6 2008
From: Sydney, Australia

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to alex_lord)

thanks so much alex_lord.. sounds so much better in your video,.
I was getting a heart attack thinking the guitar that's coming to me in march sounds like the video i posted.. it sounds like a toy guitar in the video i posted..

thanks so much =)

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 21 2009 17:03:19

kovachian

Posts: 506
Joined: Jan. 30 2008
From: Americanistan

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to HolyEvil) 1 votes

All the famous players are switching to Yamaha, haven't you heard?

_____________________________

Don't look at me in that tone of voice.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 21 2009 18:23:02

rombsix

Posts: 7808
Joined: Jan. 11 2006
From: Beirut, Lebanon

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to HolyEvil)

Hey HolyEvil!

Check out the uploaded files here:

http://www.foroflamenco.com/tm.asp?m=95399&appid=&p=&mpage=1&key=&tmode=&smode=&s=#95399

This is what the Yamaha CG-171SF sounds like. I was playing it and using a decent USB mic.

Enjoy!

_____________________________

Ramzi

http://www.youtube.com/rombsix

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 22 2009 0:26:12

HolyEvil

Posts: 1240
Joined: Nov. 6 2008
From: Sydney, Australia

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to kovachian)

kova-hey play nice.. wish i had money for a better guitar.. but hey... life beckons *sigh*...

rombsix- it sounds really good.. the tone and your playing!! thanks for the link

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 22 2009 0:40:11

rombsix

Posts: 7808
Joined: Jan. 11 2006
From: Beirut, Lebanon

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to HolyEvil)

You're welcome, dude!

_____________________________

Ramzi

http://www.youtube.com/rombsix

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 22 2009 0:56:59

kovachian

Posts: 506
Joined: Jan. 30 2008
From: Americanistan

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to HolyEvil) 1 votes

I am playing nice, because I myself play a Yamaha.

_____________________________

Don't look at me in that tone of voice.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 22 2009 17:30:32

henrym3483

Posts: 1584
Joined: Nov. 13 2005
From: Limerick,Ireland

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to HolyEvil)

heres a soela on my yamaha

http://www.foroflamenco.com/tm.asp?m=99321&p=1&tmode=1&smode=1

three tientos falsetas
http://www.foroflamenco.com/tm.asp?m=91807&p=2&tmode=1&smode=1

its a good beginner guitar but i changed the bridgebones to allow for easierv barr chords

best

henry

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 23 2009 8:16:24

HolyEvil

Posts: 1240
Joined: Nov. 6 2008
From: Sydney, Australia

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to henrym3483)

hey there Henry, thanks for the links!
just quick question, won't changing the nut make bar chords easier or are you talking about barring higher up the neck?
Because changing the bridge's height would affect from about 5th fret up and won't significantly change the height of the lower fret's action.
I could be mistaken tho.

cheers

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 24 2009 15:35:12

Guest

[Deleted] (in reply to HolyEvil)

[Deleted by Admins]

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 2 2009 5:03:17

henrym3483

Posts: 1584
Joined: Nov. 13 2005
From: Limerick,Ireland

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to Guest)

all i can say is my yamaha is about twice the weight of a regular "real" flamenco guitar.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 2 2009 7:27:06

ToddK

Posts: 2961
Joined: Dec. 6 2004

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to HolyEvil)

ITs about the wieght of a typical valencian classical guitar.

_____________________________

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 2 2009 7:57:17

ChiyoDad

Posts: 151
Joined: Jun. 30 2007
From: San Francisco Bay Area

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to ToddK)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ToddK

ITs about the wieght of a typical valencian classical guitar.

That's correct. 3.5 pounds. See the specs on mine here:

http://chiyostrings.blogspot.com/2008/04/review-yamaha-cg171sf-flamenco-guitar.html

_____________________________

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 2 2009 11:46:44

Guest

[Deleted] (in reply to ChiyoDad)

[Deleted by Admins]

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2009 5:42:32

ChiyoDad

Posts: 151
Joined: Jun. 30 2007
From: San Francisco Bay Area

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to Guest)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nealf
That is very heavy for a blanca, for comparison my Ramirez FL2 blanca weighed in at 2.5lbs and my Conde Gravina Negra weighed in at 3.25 lbs.

True. But of course there are trade-offs.

Yamaha = Laminated B/S student guitar = $300
Ramirez FL2 = Solid B/S = $3000
Conde Hermanos Gravina Negra = Solid B/S = $3600

You could probably find a lighter instrument if you bought a Navarro blanca for about $800-$900 from Tom at La Falseta. The Yamaha is strictly a budget-student instrument.

http://www.lafalseta.com/navarro_flamencos.html

_____________________________

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2009 6:24:21

Arash

Posts: 4495
Joined: Aug. 9 2006
From: Iran (living in Germany)

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to HolyEvil)

question: what is exactly the advantage of lighter instrument ?

_____________________________

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2009 6:44:37

Guest

[Deleted] (in reply to ChiyoDad)

[Deleted by Admins]

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2009 10:08:21

alex_lord

Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2 2006
From: Vancouver, B.C., Canada

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to Guest)

I think lighter is considered to translate to a quicker attack.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2009 11:05:29

itoprover

Posts: 343
Joined: Jan. 3 2006

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to alex_lord)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alex_lord
I think lighter is considered to translate to a quicker attack.

not necessarily, condes from felipe are heavy but attack is amazing. I also have seen very light blancas with poor attack.

_____________________________

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2009 18:33:35

ToddK

Posts: 2961
Joined: Dec. 6 2004

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to HolyEvil)

i would imagin, that it would take less quality control to build a heavy
guitar ie= thick top, sides, back etc.

To build a guitar with a thinner top, sides, etc, and light bracing, it would
require alot more quality control and craftsmanship in order for the guitar to
be durable, and solid, and able to withstand climate changes and getting banged around without shrinking, swelling, cracking, etc

Just a guess really, but thats my 2 cents,
TK

_____________________________

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2009 22:59:21

Arash

Posts: 4495
Joined: Aug. 9 2006
From: Iran (living in Germany)

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to HolyEvil)

Makes sence Todd.
Thanks all.
As for attack and sound, i heard that it is not so much about beeing blanca or Negra (back and sides), but its mostly about soundboard.
So you can have a "Negra sounding" blanca and a "blanca sounding" Negra, depending what the luthier does with the soundboard.

However, i guess a "dull sounding" blanca is not desirable (whereas a Negra with sharp sound and attack is desirable and intended to have this combination of depth, Volume AND attack), so i would guess that it is a sign that it is a cheap factory guitar whenever a blanca sounds too dull.
Again, i am no expert.

_____________________________

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 4 2009 6:17:15

Arash

Posts: 4495
Joined: Aug. 9 2006
From: Iran (living in Germany)

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to ToddK)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ToddK

To build a guitar with a thinner top, sides, etc, and light bracing, it would
require alot more quality control and craftsmanship in order for the guitar to
be durable, and solid, and able to withstand climate changes and getting banged around without shrinking, swelling, cracking, etc

There is this cheap Saez 22 Flamenco Guitar for instance which has a very thin soundboard etc. and is light and sounds very good for the price (it is about 500 Euros), it sounds better than the yamaha,,,,,but i read in another forum and from a dealer that there has been a lot of cracks after a while if the guitar has been played intensively (with a lot Golpes. etc) and some complaints therefore and that one must handle these guitars carefully.

So, again, makes sence what you say.

_____________________________

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 4 2009 6:47:12

ChiyoDad

Posts: 151
Joined: Jun. 30 2007
From: San Francisco Bay Area

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to Guest)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nealf
Building a guitar with a thinner top/back/sides is not going to increase costs for Yamaha, in fact when you look at multiples of thousands units it actually makes good sense to use as little of the raw material as possible.

In this case, it would probably increase the cost. The back and sides of the CG171SF are laminates. They're cypress layers on a what I suspect is a core layer of mahogany. In mass production, laminates are cheaper to use for the B/S. My understanding is that laminates are heavier and that probably explains the Yamaha's weight.

The others are lighter in part because they use solid woods for the back and sides.

Todd's speculation that the guitar is overbuilt to increase durability is probably true as well.

I don't even see the point of comparing the Yamaha against those two instruments. They're not even close to being in the same league. The guitars to compare the Yamaha against would be other factory-made guitars with laminated B/S. Lower-end Cordobas, Alhambras, Esteves and Aparicios come to mind. Against those guitars, one will probably find the weights to be comparable. One will probably find the tone to be comparable as well. The Yamaha wins out on its $300 price (at least in the US).

_____________________________

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 4 2009 9:01:07

pacowannab

Posts: 35
Joined: Mar. 3 2008

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to HolyEvil)

I agree with Todd K and Arash. It is all about avoiding too many warranty issues. Building a light guitar in this price range is risky. Lighter guitars are generally more frail and prone to cracking.

I also agree that laminating the back and sides (in this case for financial reasons rather than tonal issues- eg Smallman classical guitars) probably increases the weight (and the sustain).

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 4 2009 10:34:36

alex_lord

Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2 2006
From: Vancouver, B.C., Canada

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to pacowannab)

For what it's worth, apart from having reasonably good sound and action, the Yamaha is like a tank. I've banged it on the walls, dropped it, left it in a hot car for far longer than I intended to, and it still looks brand new. When I get a better guitar, I'll definitely keep this one for playing outside, etc.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 4 2009 16:16:15

ToddK

Posts: 2961
Joined: Dec. 6 2004

RE: CG171SF's tone (in reply to HolyEvil)

quote:

For what it's worth, apart from having reasonably good sound and action, the Yamaha is like a tank. I've banged it on the walls, dropped it, left it in a hot car for far longer than I intended to, and it still looks brand new. When I get a better guitar, I'll definitely keep this one for playing outside, etc.

exactly why i love mine

_____________________________

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 5 2009 10:33:26