CG171SF's tone (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - General: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=13
- - - CG171SF's tone: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=101944



Message

HolyEvil -> CG171SF's tone (Feb. 21 2009 7:44:15)

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



ChiyoDad -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Feb. 21 2009 9:01:32)

Don't you have one?

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



Arash -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Feb. 21 2009 9:09:08)

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.



HolyEvil -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Feb. 21 2009 15:21:41)

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



alex_lord -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Feb. 21 2009 16:31:52)

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



HolyEvil -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Feb. 21 2009 17:03:19)

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 =)



kovachian -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Feb. 21 2009 18:23:02)

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



rombsix -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Feb. 22 2009 0:26:12)

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!



HolyEvil -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Feb. 22 2009 0:40:11)

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



rombsix -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Feb. 22 2009 0:56:59)

You're welcome, dude!

[:)]



kovachian -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Feb. 22 2009 17:30:32)

I am playing nice, because I myself play a Yamaha. [:)]



henrym3483 -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Feb. 23 2009 8:16:24)

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



HolyEvil -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Feb. 24 2009 15:35:12)

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



Guest -> [Deleted] (Mar. 2 2009 5:03:17)

[Deleted by Admins]



henrym3483 -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Mar. 2 2009 7:27:06)

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



ToddK -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Mar. 2 2009 7:57:17)

ITs about the wieght of a typical valencian classical guitar.



ChiyoDad -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Mar. 2 2009 11:46:44)

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



Guest -> [Deleted] (Mar. 3 2009 5:42:32)

[Deleted by Admins]



ChiyoDad -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Mar. 3 2009 6:24:21)

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

[:D]

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



Arash -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Mar. 3 2009 6:44:37)

question: what is exactly the advantage of lighter instrument ?



Guest -> [Deleted] (Mar. 3 2009 10:08:21)

[Deleted by Admins]



alex_lord -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Mar. 3 2009 11:05:29)

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



itoprover -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Mar. 3 2009 18:33:35)

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.



ToddK -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Mar. 3 2009 22:59:21)

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



Arash -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Mar. 4 2009 6:17:15)

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.



Arash -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Mar. 4 2009 6:47:12)

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.



ChiyoDad -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Mar. 4 2009 9:01:07)

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).



pacowannab -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Mar. 4 2009 10:34:36)

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).



alex_lord -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Mar. 4 2009 16:16:15)

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.



ToddK -> RE: CG171SF's tone (Mar. 5 2009 10:33:26)

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[:)]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET