-
Introduction (Randy C)
An automatic defense mechanism is enabled when one makes a purchase … automobile, motorcycle, shotgun, guitar, washing machine. The buyer defends the purchase, overtly or semi-overtly, for it might otherwise be implied that he/she didn't research the purchase adequately or may have questionable taste.
The defensiveness seems to be stimulated with even greater intensity when inexpensive purchases are considered (no one wants to be thought of as "penny-wise and pound-foolish"). Sometimes the rhetoric accompanying this is wild; favorable comparisons are made between products that cost the equivalent of four or five "dinners for two" with products that cost a month's salary or more.
The implication is that the buyer has made a wise, well-considered decision resulting in a purchase that is equal or superior to what more foolish persons expend on their purchases. (Read some "Harmony Central" reviews for typical illustrations. A totally acceptable justification is the implicit allusion that the buyer doesn't "run with the herd".)
Maintaining that style of analogy when guitars/amplifiers are considered, I believe that it's possible to acquire a fine product by skipping a couple of six-packs of beer a week for a couple of years. I'm being facetious BUT the purchase of a quality instrument - that appreciates with time - shouldn't stress the average household budget, if one focuses on the "working musician" level instrument.
OK, with me so far?
By making products available to unbiased evaluators at no cost for long periods of time, I thought to eliminate built-in defensiveness and bring impartiality into the review process. I've read very few reviews written by purchasers that didn't sound like morning-after conversations regarding a first date.
None of us are immune to this defensive behavior, in the past I've attempted (not always successfully) to limit my personal contributions in previous evaluations to measurable, quantifiable observations rather than personal impressions of tonal qualities, expression/projection of artistic feelings and the like … THAT'S where defensiveness is most frequently exhibited.
It's fairly easy to make an A to B comparison between products when there are measurable differences in their characteristics … and this is a process that most musical instrument manufacturers resist with all of their considerable advertising abilities, for obvious reasons.
Similarly it is equally easy to avoid comparisons based on objectivity by emphasizing subjectivity; "value-based" (inexpensive) products use that strategy in their advertising. I hasten to state that one size doesn't fit all and that musical products aren't completely "measurable" but here is a fact: although there are many variables, optimum performance from highly-skilled musicians occurs when the musician bonds with his/her instrument. I've noted previously that Isaac Stern didn't play a Yamaha violin and Yo Yo Ma doesn't play a Chinese cello. The self-confidence of any musician is enhanced by the quality and craftsmanship of the instrument.
As in previous evaluations, reviewers in this exercise were selected from various geographical areas and they perform different styles of music - all are experienced musicians, ranging in age from late twenties to late sixties. The selection of this particular guitar - and it wouldn't normally be considered a "jazz" instrument - was based on my respect for the manufacturer and the fact that Carvin hasn't previously produced a semi-hollow body guitar.
Further, it's my opinion that a majority of guitar purchases are made on the basis of (1) price and (2) "prettiness", despite what most purchasers otherwise claim.
Although the product line is not as diverse as some manufacturers, Carvin instruments are competitive with any mass-produced guitar made anywhere in the world, regarding the "price/prettiness" concerns (styling is naturally a matter of personal taste). Although this is a personal opinion, it is substantiated by both personal experience and research.
Carvin instruments are likewise competitive - and more - in materials, workmanship, internal details, quality and have a satisfaction-guaranteed lifetime warranty (like Gibson). As a long-time owner of a forty-year-old Carvin DC-150, veteran of more "dangerous" bar gigs than any guitar that I own - I'm respectful of this manufacturer of products that disappoint few and acquire many admirers.
Beauty is skin deep - as everyone has heard. Most of the instruments imported from China illustrate that aphorism perfectly. Pretty on the outside, ugly on the inside and that describes models that are way past introductory pricing level. Cut into the top of one of these instruments, as I did, and check out the interior details - then form an opinion of how well they will age and whether they will ever gain value.
I regret that Carvin hasn't chosen to apply their manufacturing skills to hollow body guitars but that is a business decision. The better mass-produced hollow body guitars are produced by companies with a history of understanding material selection, woodworking techniques, jig/fixture design, adhesive technology, shaping internal structural details - fine-tuning all of these variables - and many more over time (and documenting successful designs).
Carvin has apparently decided to do what it does best, leaving other products to manufacturers who do those products best. My regret is based on speculation that a competitive stimulation would be good for jazz guitar manufacturers and level-off prices. Just a thought.
Fine archtop guitars produced by individual luthiers are based on their understanding of traditional designs, processes, techniques and materials that the milestone companies have produced for many decades. These modern artisans add to the hisroically successful product, their personal interpretations and ingenuity that may be an incremental improvement on the basic instrument. If the system works successfully, incremental improvements will eventually be incorporated into production-oriented instruments made by mainstream companies.
I ordered the Carvin SH-550 guitar, paid for it and had it shipped to St. Louis for the first reviewer to evaluate. The instrument was handed along to the other reviewers, shipping costs were paid by me - none of the evaluators were expected to pay out-of-pocket expenses although all of them spent a LOT of time packing, unpacking and hauling around the guitar to Fed-X and UPS.
Thank you, reviewers, for your time, expertise, good will and cooperation !
-
07-28-2010 08:09 PM
-
Carvin SH-550 Review (Bryan Davison)
Hello all, for my review of this guitar I was mostly interested in comparison between the SH550, my PRS Custom 24, and my Gibson ES-135. I was also interested in its function as an all-around guitar. I do a lot of different gigs, be it rock, jazz, funk, whatever pays, etc., and I get the feeling many forum members are in that same boat. I also do a lot of 'society' gigs like weddings, private corporate parties, and the like where you want one guitar to handle jazz standards, Earth, Wind, & Fire, and Bon Jovi in the same night with the same setup. I did also test it out in a more traditional jazz sense, so hopefully everyone will find something useful from this.
The first thing I'd have to say is that this guitar was amazing right from the factory. Carvin's packing was excellent and when I opened the case I literally had to take a step back. There was the “new case smell” (not nearly as appealing as “new car smell”), but in all seriousness the guitar looked that good. It looked better than the pictures on the net could hope to make it look. It has a poly finish which I know upsets almost everyone, but it is still a very resonant instrument unplugged. It had been buffed out so well I was actually nervous about dropping it when I picked it up by just the neck. The neck joint, by the way, is unbelievable; probably the smoothest neck-to-body joint I've ever played. The neck has more of a “D” shape to it and is between the thickness of the Gibson and the PRS and is a 25 in. scale. It's not as thick as the 135's neck, but you feel more neck on the sides than the PRS. The inlay and fret work is pretty much perfect. The inlays look like they may have been laser cut. I couldn't see any filler. It was fairly lightweight and was perfectly balanced.
Some other points about the construction that should be noted are how easy this guitar is to adjust. It came with Elixir 10's, and I tried it out with D'Addario Chrome 11's as well. It was very easy to adjust the truss rod for the Chromes as well as set intonation. I was never able to get the action as low as I like, but I like my action low. I've actually had metalhead friends say that my guitars are setup too low for them. It comes with Sperzel locking tuners, which held tune very well, but ultimately I'd say they aren't my favorite. When I was changing strings, I completely mangled the high E string to the point it was unusable. Apparently it needed to sit right in the middle for the post to catch it.
I went back to rounds, and when I detuned the high E to get it out, it broke. Other than that, they were alright. If you leave a decent amount of slack after the tuning key, changing strings is pretty easy, but I actually prefer the PRS wingnut tuners (if you don't know what I'm talking about, until 2002 PRS's locking tuners were a weird wingnut contraption that were not very popular). If I spent enough time with them, I'd probably change my mind, but who knows. Also, there were threaded brass inserts for the control plate screws, and the control plates were completely shielded along with the cavities. The solder work was very clean (obviously I disassembled and inspected the interior).
While I had the guitar, I used it for recording sessions with an original band, played it at church, test played it a lot at home, and lastly took it to a friend's teaching studio with my Marshall to really see how it did with feedback. I used this guitar as a telecaster (the Carvin has a single coil option) with the original band. Yeah, after 20 minutes of playing it at home I realized it was exactly the sound I wanted for one of our songs.
I played it through a very overdriven Vox AC30, using a TS9 Tubescreamer for more gain when needed for solos, and using the volume knob for clean tones. The single-coil tones were great. This is the only guitar I've played where a coil split actually sounded like single-coils and not just a paper thin, wimpier version of the humbucker. It cleaned up very nicely by rolling down the volume. I used the guitar on the Saturday session for more lead work, in humbucking mode with the TS9. Feedback was never a problem, although there were sound blocks in front of the amp.
I would say the sound was between the 135 and the PRS, which is what I expected. The pickups are actually relatively low output, but still hotter than the '57 Classics in my 135, not as hot as the PRS. It was sort of like instead of the punch of the PRS, it was more of a very strong shove. It was more towards the warm squishiness of the 135, but more assertive. Also, it never went out of tune for either session. I'm not kidding.
I tried it out at church the next day since that was the closest thing to a gig I had while I was in possession of this guitar. I was playing through a small, handmade 8-watt amp with two eight-inch speakers and the TS9 again. The guitar sounded great, but it seemed to be prone to feedback. I mostly chalked it up to the amp. It was a pretty simple setup, just one channel, volume, and tone control. It was also directly behind me and pointed right at me.
-
Carvin SH-550 Review (Bryan Davison, continued)
The rest of my playing was at home, either through my POD with a Dumble patch or a Marshall JCM800 patch, my Phil Jones CUB, and a quick, once-and-for-all feedback test with my Marshall. My main interest, as I've stated, was comparison between my PRS and my Gibson, but I had other guitars at my disposal that were more extreme in both the jazz and rock direction. First was my brother-in-law's Les Paul Studio, the second was my Alverez AD-65. The AD-65 is a “proper” jazz guitar that I'd liken to a Godin Kingpin more than anything. Anyway, it was Carvin vs. '01 PRS Custom 24 and '00 Gibson ES-135 Limited Edition, with a side bet against a '93 Gibson Les Paul Studio and an '00 Alvarez AD-65.
The Carvin gets very satisfying sounds for any genre. It's pretty dark. Just to save some space and clear up the side bet, tone-wise for rock, the Les Paul beats everything to my ears. As a blues guitar, the SH-550 gets that classic, airy, hollow tone (duh) but with the coils tapped, it has that plus the snap of a tele. In that regard it would probably be the winner for me. As a rock guitar, it's not as in your face as the PRS and doesn't play as well since I couldn't get the action as low.
But me saying a guitar can't get low enough might not mean as much on a jazz forum. However, the neck joint makes upper fret access almost as easy as the PRS ( 24 fret double cutaway, body joins at the 22nd fret). It was definitely easier than the Les Paul. The slightly lower output is actually kind of nice on the blues and rock side, since you can turn your amp up more and let it do its job. Again, the pickups clean up very nicely when you roll the volume back. Among the rock guitars (several Gibsons and the PRS), all had a noticeable midrange hump in the tone. The 135 was at the highest frequency, followed by the PRS and Les Paul (interestingly enough, at the same frequency, although the PRS pre-emphasis wasn't as loud), then the Carvin.
My last test on the rock side was a real feedback resistance test. I took my 40-watt, 1x12, all-tube Marshall to a friend's teaching studio and just went to town. I brought the 135 along for comparison. I turned up the master volume to the threshold of pain, put it up on a stand at guitar level, faced the amp and stood a couple feet away (sort of a Mythbusters let's-see-what-it-takes-to-make-it-happen approach). The Carvin was the clear winner. If your wedding set includes some Bon Jovi or Journey (mine do) then this guitar will work fine, even in extremely less-than-ideal setup conditions.
During this test, I noticed some other interesting differences. First was that the Carvin seemed to have more balance between the tones of the pickups. The 135 is more warm and squishy out of the neck, and honky out of the bridge. It seems like Gibson didn't really voice the pickups specific to the bridge and neck locations, so the sound from the pickups simply reproduces the string vibration at the neck and at the bridge location, rather than adding a specific tonality to either. The Carvin seemed to mellow out the tonal differences between bridge and neck more. I didn't really prefer either, but I felt it was worth noting. I also tried the single-coil option again, and was very impressed with the Hendrix-esque tones that can come out of this guitar.
As a jazz guitar, the Carvin also shines. I should start out letting you all know that for jazz tones, I have pretty traditional tastes. I compared it with rounds and flats, against the 135 with rounds and flats, and against the AD-65 with flats only. All jazz testing was done through my Phil Jones Cub. It is definitely the darkest of those guitars, even with brand-new Elixirs on it. It is not as open sounding as as the AD-65 or the 135, which was to be expected. Even with rounds, I would feel comfortable playing in a combo with this instrument.
With flats this was a very pleasing jazz guitar. I found it to have a nice dark, mellow, "Pat Martino" type sound. It punched harder than the 135 and AD-65 both, which again, was expected. I felt this would make it a great combo instrument, as the instrument would be very easy to hear, but it also has a very pleasant, mellow sound. (Also, it's very comfortable to play.) I tried the single-coil function with this setup, but it didn't seem to make much of a difference. It was pretty much just quieter and thinner sounding. Not really thinner in a bad way; it's tough to describe. It wasn't like a P90, but it didn't sound bad. I guess the best way to describe that sound is ok, but nothing to write home about.
The best way I can think of to sum up my opinion on the Carvin SH550 is this; I want one, but to get one I'd have to sell my PRS and my Gibson, and I'm not willing to do that. Having said that, if I had known about this guitar when I was shopping for my PRS 9 years ago and been able to A/B them, I'd probably have the Carvin and might not have the 135. I feel safe in saying that this is the most diverse guitar I've ever played.
I've been a fan of semi-hollows for the past several years now because of their diversity, but in most cases it's because I feel a semi has a distinct sound that works for any type of music. The Carvin seemed more chameleonic, if that's even a word. What I mean is that it gets many different sounds thanks to the coil tap. With the locking tuners, you can easily switch between rounds and flats if you need it to get a more traditional sound for one particular gig and switch back, or vice-versa. Basically, if I win the lottery, even a decent paying scratch-off, I'd get one. I'm just too attached to my PRS mainly, and also my ES-135 to part with either or both to get one Carvin.
-
Carvin SH-550 review (Mister Beaumont)
FIRST IMPRESSIONS:
Wow, this guitar is pretty. You sometimes almost have to think about that, when that’s your first reaction to a guitar. Will everything else be tainted now? Will I want to like the guitar so bad I’ll overlook other little things that usually bother me just because the instrument is so damn sexy? Or will I find myself biased in another matter, along the lines of “humph, this could never be a working musician’s guitar, it’s too glossy and perfect.”
Both prejudices actually reared their ugly heads in my attempt to review this guitar, and I’ve made it a point, rather than to edit them, to draw attention to them. For better or for worse, this is the way the brain of a guitarist works.
So, here I am, staring down at this beautiful instrument—finished flawlessly, quilted top, plain neck and back, diamond shaped inlays, excellent fretwork—heck, not even a smudge on the chrome covered pickups…what to expect?
Well, for starters—it’s heavy! Way heavier than it looks. Upon pulling it from the very nice Carvin branded G&G case, I couldn’t help but be surprised with how substantial a guitar this was. Eager to try it out, I propped my knee up on a chair, grabbed the guitar into playing position, and quickly realized no playing was going to be done this way—the guitar simply does not balance without a strap.
Of course, not a big deal - who plays standing without a strap? But even upon sitting down, I couldn’t help but feel the pull of the body’s mass tugging the guitar off my lap. Couple the problem of the waist of the guitar being rather far up the body with the fact that the Carvin holds most of it’s weight in it’s rear end, it was simply not an enjoyable experience to play this guitar sitting down.
A quick run off to grab a strap, and then it’s time for the…
INITIAL PLUG IN:
A Fender Blues Junior happened to be the closest amp at hand, so the Carvin got plugged in there first, which led to another disappointment—at a setting which produces a completely clean tone with my other guitars, the Carvin came roaring through with plenty of (some would say "pleasant") tube breakup. In fact, this would be a trend I’d notice with the Carvin for the two weeks I had it, despite pickup adjustments and plenty of amp tweaking—these pickups are HOT. Hot enough to where a 15 watt tube amp could not be played clean loud enough to compete with a drummer.
Being a jazz player, I was greatly disappointed, but then I figured, “why fight it?”
Truth is, this guitar is a rock and roll machine. The neck (also a skinnier profile than I normally enjoy) plays fast and easy, and the Gibson-esque frets allow for easy string bending and legato playing as well as not hindering sliding and quick chording. The pickups, while hardly ever completely clean (they even drove a solid state ZT Lunchbox into it’s “tube-like” gain stage) sing with various effects, most notably, a little delay and a slightly overdriven tone and I was digging through the back of my brain catalog for every Lee Ritenour lick I could remember from Steely Dan’s "Aja". At which point, the aforementioned prejudices were called up.
“This guitar has an identity crisis.”
I come from a background where rock and roll instruments are sweat-stained, paint chipped tools that smell like beer and cigarettes…the Carvin is anything but—it’s very ”polite” looking. It reminded me almost immediately of a Paul Reed Smith, a brand of guitar I’ve never been able to bond with—marketed to the rock and roll heart, but too much a work of art to be taken seriously—it’s a guitar for my Lexus driving dentist, not a cat who gigs 100 nights a year.
Right?
Truth be told, while my biased brain wanted to write the Carvin off, the fact is, this guitar costs HALF of what PRS could offer in a similar style. And no goofy bird inlays, or the precedent of the guy from Creed and Carlos Santana being your “labelmates.” No, the Carvin is actually an insane value—the quality is very high, the attention to detail impeccable, the playability on par with the finest instruments I’ve ever picked up. So why can’t I like it yet?
ANOTHER VIEW, or “Dammit, I’m gonna like this guitar if it kills me”
So back to the drawing board…there’s so many things to like about a semi hollow guitar—they’re as versatile as anything, they look great, they sustain beautifully, they don’t feed back as much as a full hollow jazz box. Certain, there had to be some clean as a whistle 335 tones in there for to jazz it up with.
Plugging the guitar into my Polytone MB III, I received my answer.
First of all, the pickups were still hot HOT HOT! (did I mention that yet?)—which does not mean distortion on the Polytone, but rather, the amp was loud and brittle sounding under the current equalization (dead flat) A little tweaking found that indeed, good jazz tones were available with this guitar, a warm, round bottom end, singing highs, and a pronounced midrange scoop that was nicely filled in by the midrange heavy Polytone.
Now that I was really enjoying what I was playing, I was able to notice a few other things about the Carvin I hadn’t before. While the body weight had been off-putting while seated, strapped up and standing the guitar is instantly pulled into playing position—this axe is meant to perform. The knobs are smooth and there’s no “jumpiness” to the change in volume—a clean sweep all the way from silence to roar. The neck is a quite thin profile though, and an hour of complex chording left my hand quite fatigued. It was a bump back to reality, I suppose…this guitar is not for me.
SUM OF THE PARTS:
The Carvin has a lot going for it—great value, user customizable options, excellent workmanship, fast playability (as long as you’re burning more single notes than stretchy chords) and yes, it’s eye candy. The guitar can be wedged into many niches, but at heart, it’s a rock guitar, meant to be played standing and loud, allowing the world to hear it’s pickups drive any tube amp into luscious break up while maintaining great clarity between notes. It’s a fusion guitarist’s dream come true, and it’s affordable.
Sadly, there’s also a segment of the population who likes to play clean, who likes to sit down, and who spends more time searching for new closed voicings than burning solos above the 10th fret. And for those guitarists, like me, the Carvin is another in a long line of pretty guitars that just won’t do it for us.
P.S. I’ve tried several times to craft some sort of metaphor about that last sentence that involves the female of the species, but I can’t seem to make it happen. Maybe that’s the bigger metaphor right there—with the Carvin, it seemed like it was all right there at my fingertips, but after reviewing it, I was left tongue tied and confused.
-
Carvin SH-550 Review (John Rosett)
I should start this review by saying that I have never had (or even played very much) a guitar like the Carvin SH-550. I have only recently started playing guitars with humbucking pickups, and those only on full hollow body guitars.
The workmanship and materials on the guitar are absolutely top-notch. The finish appears perfect. The fretwork was beautiful! I had to raise the action considerably from where the last reviewer had set it, and the bridge was easier to manipulate than any other I've experienced. Even with the action raise, the guitar played effortlessly. The fret work is beautiful, and I had no trouble with buzzing. This is one of the most comfortable playing guitars that I've ever played. Everything about the guitar seems well thought out and rock solid.
I played the guitar at home through a ZT Lunchbox and a ZT Club. It sounded pretty good through both, but a little generic. The split-coil setting sounded good, and I could get a decent Telecaster twang from the bridge pickup. I liked the humbucker setting on the neck pickup, but not nearly as much as my '48 Epiphone with an Armstrong floating humbucker.
I brought the guitar to a gig with my western swing band. Onstage, I really wasn't excited about the tones through the ZT amps. I switched to a 1964 Fender Bandmaster head and 2 X 10" cabinet on the break, and it sounded much better! The tube amp, cranked just a bit, responded much better to the Carvin than the solid state amps did, especially on the single coil settings. I was never very excited by the humbucker sounds of the guitar; like I said above, kind of generic sounding to me.
The sound I have in my head these days is a raw, Charlie Christian kind of tone, which I can get with the old Epi through the Lunchbox amp. I just couldn't coax that kind of sound out of the Carvin through any of the amps that I tried it. I think that it would probably work well with a low wattage, single 12 speaker tube amp. I played the last set of the gig with the Epiphone into the Lunchbox, and was happier with that than what I could get out of the Carvin.
Although I've been playing for more decades than I care to recall, the Carvin was my first experience with a semi-hollow guitar, and I think maybe that I didn't do it justice as far as its tone goes. Maybe more tweaking of the tone controls would have helped, but I can usually tell if I'm going to like the way a guitar sounds pretty quickly. The Carvin is probably a great guitar for other styles of music, but I just couldn't make it work for my hillbilly jazz style. Might be more my limits than the guitar's. I just didn't really "bond" with it. Maybe if it was fully hollow...
The only other criticism I have is that the massive, rectangular case is really heavy, and maybe overkill for a guitar that seems pretty sturdy already.
-
Carvin SH-550 Review (LPDeluxe)
I unpacked this guitar from its factory carton (carefully re-used by the previous evaluators to ship it to me) to find a nice G&G black textured-vinyl covered hard case. Unlike those of many semi-hollow electric guitars, the case is rectangular. The same manufacturer builds the “vintage” model Fender cases, and, like those, the Carvin features a sliding lock closure toward each end with a clasp in the middle. It is lined with black plush, and has a generous pocket with a tab that snaps it shut. As is common with hard shell cases, it will likely serve well for normal use. If I were flying with it, I would get something more substantial – something that is true for all guitars and basses.
Opening the case, I was impressed. The Carvin SH550 is very attractive, this example having a clear gloss finish over a quilted maple cap and mahogany body and neck. When I lifted the guitar out, I noticed its light weight (advertised at 8.25 lb). I found no flaws in the finish, fingerboard or frets, and the highly figured top was nicely book matched.
This is the base model, with few of the options that include a Bigsby tailpiece, more elaborate electronics, and wide color choices; but it is far from “bare bones” in appearance. The wood was of high quality. The mahogany body and neck are made of clear-grained, evenly colored wood and the wide and relatively flat fingerboard (12” radius: 10” and 14” are available) is ebony. The neck has 22 medium-jumbo frets, and the peghead has a subtle gold “Carvin” logo (a more prominent abalone-inlaid logo is available as an option). This particular instrument has the available diamond mother of pearl inlays for position markers.
Looking at the photographs in Carvin’s catalog one sees “natural binding effect” which is how they describe leaving the edge of the top plate unstained. With the natural finish, it is less apparent. Being a true-blue ES-335 player, I expected that the lack of binding wouldn’t look right but in the event, I soon forgot about it: the guitar looks very attractive without it, and the rounded-over edge of the maple lends a finished look to the guitar. This is typical of Carvin’s design approach, which is to let the materials speak for themselves rather than adding trim (think of a Stratocaster as being the opposite extreme, with its painted body covered with chrome doodads and various plastic pieces). Guitars may be ordered in left-handed configuration at no extra charge.
Hardware on this one is chrome; gold is an option.
The SH550, at 14.1” across the lower bout is about halfway in size between a Gibson Les Paul (a little over 12”) and a Gibson ES-335 (16”), and lighter than either. Depth is about an inch more than either Gibson. It resembles an enlarged hollowed Les Paul with f-holes, a similar single cutaway, pickup selector on the upper bass bout, and two chrome-covered humbucker pickups. Controls consist of a volume and a tone knob, along with the selector switch. The tone knob pulls out to put the pickups in single-coil mode, which Carvin says are wired to be humbucking when used together.
Tuning machines are locking Sperzels, and the output jack (on the lower treble bout) is mounted on a rectangular metal plate that will help prevent dings in the finish while inserting the cord. Strap buttons are located at the butt of the guitar and on the upper bass bout, a more sensible arrangement than my 335’s button on the heel of the neck.
This guitar is comfortable to play either standing or sitting; it hangs nicely balanced on a strap and sits securely on your leg if you are seated.
Let’s plug it in!
I have a small herd of Fender guitar amplifiers, and tried each of them in turn. The Carvin was a little picky about which one it was attached to, at least to my ear, and I ended up favoring one over the others. More on this later.
First playing impressions were that this is a very well designed guitar. The .375” added scale length, compared to my Gibsons, was practically unnoticeable. I liked the flat fingerboard, and the slimness of the neck made it fast and comfortable. Access to the upper frets is comparable to the Les Paul and 335, but, as you would expect, can’t compare to a Gibson SG (a statement that applies to a great many electric guitars). The frets are well finished, with no buzzes or other problems.
Intonation was spot-on. The strings are a little lighter than I’m used to (I string the SG – and the Les Paul before I sold it – with .011s, and have .012s on my 335, all with wound 3rds) but I had no difficulty in playing in tune. Overall, this is an ergonomic, comfortable guitar, with its only failing (from my perspective) being the awkwardly located selector switch compared to that on the 335 and SG, which in contrast are in a natural position near your right hand (reverse for left-handed players).
The real issue, however, is not comfort, nor appearance, nor the inclusion of trick hardware: it’s the sound. And before I discuss sound, I’d like to talk about my history with Carvin over 36 years.
-
Carvin SH-550 Review (LPDeluxe, continued)
I bought my first Carvin product, the AP6 six-string lap steel pickup, in 1974. I used it to electrify my used Ventura V-7 flat top, which I had gotten for the princely sum of $35 three years before. I now had a Silvertone 1484, bought from its original owner for another $40 (yeah, I was the big spender, back then) and the pickup allowed me to annoy my neighbors and wake my young children with my renditions of the few songs I had then learned, if not mastered.
Over the years I have had Carvin power amps, PA speakers (mains and monitors), a headphone amp, a terrific guitar amp (yeah, one of the oak cabinet ones) and still have a stereo amp in my little rack-mount sound system, all acquired at low prices with minimal problems.
In 2000, I ordered a Carvin LB20 bass (four strings, passive electronics) in mahogany. Like all Carvin instruments I have ever seen or handled, it was flawlessly beautiful.
Alas, it wasn’t for me. It didn’t sound the way I expected a bass to sound, and its shape was designed for someone with a form factor quite different from my own. I replaced the Carvin J99 pickups with DiMarzios, but to no avail. I eventually traded it off and converted to Fender Precisions, which suit my physiognomy and my musical taste much better.
Overall, I have liked – but not loved – Carvin. They have offered American-made, quality gear for good prices longer than I’ve been playing.
But, based on my experience with the bass, my expectations were low. I have owned and played quite a few electric guitars, and have sold or traded each of them in their turn as I became aware of their limitations and faults. The list included, notably, a Ric 366, a Stratocaster, a ’63 Gretsch Chet Atkins Country Gent, and the Les Paul. Bling matters little to me: it’s the sound and the feel that matter. Any guitar that doesn’t meet those two standards will become somebody else’s darlin’ just as soon as I can manage. Currently I own two that cover the spectrum for me: a blonde 335 and an SG with a Bigsby. I am so satisfied with them that, for the first time in my life, I can now go into a Guitar Center, buy a set of strings, and walk out again without looking at anything else.
I initially plugged the Carvin into a Fender Deluxe Reverb Reissue. The sound was too trebly, and I could not EQ it into a sound that I liked. This is not surprising, the DRRI having a reputation for brightness. I moved onto a mid-rangeier amp, a Blues Jr NOS with a Jensen speaker. It didn’t take long to decide that the BJ didn’t do the trick, either.
Both of these amps sound great with my 335, if a little brittle with the SG. Note that the 335 has a darker sound than either the Carvin or the SG, which is more to my individual taste. Others will, no doubt, greatly prefer the more full-range sound of the latter two.
On to my secret weapon, a Fender Band-Master VM head with a Weber California Ceramic 15” speaker in a Weber cabinet. I put together this rig in an attempt to get a combination of the tone I loved so much in the Deluxe Reverb with more bottom and a sweeter top end. A long-time playing partner (since 1981) told me, after hearing me play my 335 through it, that I had finally found “my” sound. In other words, it defines my idea of great tone.
And the SH550 sang through it: no harshness, with rich harmonics and full lower frequencies. There was a “bloom” to the notes that I always look for in a semi-hollow body guitar, contrasting with the crispness of a fully solid. Notes everywhere on the neck were present and musical. I found myself playing in my living room for quite a long while, something I only rarely do.
Another thing I need to say about the electronics: unlike the 335, which is a challenge to rewire, the Carvin has a generous access plate on the back, making the substitution of pickups and so on a much easier task. This is of importance if you like to experiment: I have rewired an Epiphone Sheraton II, and changed out the pots on the Country Gentleman, and I can tell you that fishing parts back and forth through the treble f-hole (in the case of the Epi) or through a small hole in the middle of the back (the Gretsch) is not a job for the faint of heart. The Carvin is much more tech-friendly.
I carried it to a friend’s large practice space (about the size of a four-car garage – I have played in smaller clubs) where we played it ensemble in a band setting with electric bass and live drummer. We played a wide variety of material, including up-tempo rock, slow ballads (Georgia on My Mind, Fly Me to the Moon), blues-rock, and some C&W (the three of us played in a honky tonk band together for several years). The session lasted three hours. We had on hand a Taylor acoustic-electric and a Fender Telecaster Showmaster, in addition to the SH550.
There was no question that the Carvin could take care of itself in a loud environment without feedback or other problems (we played loudly enough that I used earplugs). And it sounded very good. My friend then plugged it into his Vox modeling amp, and a curious thing happened: we were used to hearing him play his Tele through it, with rather subtle amp effects (distortion, self-trigger wah, and whatnot). When he played the Carvin, the effects became dramatic and sweeping. We had very little trouble finding appropriate sounds for each type of material, from jangly single-coil to mellow jazz to acoustic-sounding swirl (and some auto-trigger wah on a couple of funk songs, as well). The light weight and the neck make it comfortable for long periods, and it held its tune.
Personally, I don’t use effects other than reverb, so this exercise provided me with another insight into the Carvin.
When we were finished, my friend remarked that it put his Fender to shame, and asked me to email Randy for a price so he could buy the Carvin from him.
-
Carvin SH-550 Review (LPDeluxe, continued)
The Carvin pickups are more powerful than the ’57 humbuckers in my 335, with more pronounced harmonics and – for lack of a better term – “sparkle.” Many guitarists will love the sound through their favorite amp. Any limitation will be theirs, not the guitar’s.
In comparison to the Gibson layout, Carvin’s use of a single volume and tone control for both pickups is less versatile, but the push-pull tone knob adds other sounds not available from a Gibson. While playing the 335 I generally find a “sweet spot” on the amplifier and then adjust the guitar’s knobs to dial in the sound I want. The SH550 requires more tweaking of the amplifier’s EQ as one goes from song to song. It’s not something I’m used to doing, but it works fine. Each of us playing the Carvin could quickly find the sound we were looking for.
Sound, after all, is a personal thing. I have owned a number of electrics that have worked for me only on one or two settings. A prime example was the Stratocaster I had. It’s true, there were a lot of possible tonal combinations on that guitar – but only one worked for me. The same was true of my Les Paul Deluxe. Both recorded well, and worked in the songs I recorded, but I often yearned for something different and perhaps more aggressive. I eventually solved my problem with the two Gibsons mentioned: the 335 for smoother, more legato material, and the SG for rock and roll. Each is relatively limited, at least the way I play them (the 335 rarely ventures away from the neck pickup) but between the two I can find a useful tone. The Carvin offers much more than either one, due to its full frequency range pickups. While I stayed pretty close to my comfort zone, my friend spent the afternoon switching the pickups and turning the knobs and generally having a high old time exploring the tonal possibilities.
Is the SH550 perfect? Nothing’s perfect. I don’t like the selector switch location (which, as noted, resides in the same place as the Les Paul’s); and, as a matter of personal taste, I don’t care for the inherent flash of the figured maple. I am certain the latter is more about me than the guitar, since the top seems to be a big selling point for players. On a more trivial note, I wish the case were lined in some other color than black. And the output jack interferes with my A-frame guitar stands (also from Carvin, I must add).
Your musical preferences will also play a part. Big-box jazzbo players may find this one a little too rock and rolly; Telecaster fans may think this one’s too much guitar. Persons who like a very mellow, dark sound will have better luck with other guitars, since they would be spending most of their efforts in EQing the Carvin’s inherent sonic nature out of it.
Would I buy one? Hell, had this one been equipped with a Bigsby, I would have talked to Randy before I referred my friend to him! I may end up with an SH550B (that’s Bigsby-equipped, of course) eventually.
This is one of the best guitars I have played. If I could change anything, it would be the position of the pickup selector, and I would prefer a less flamboyant figure to the top. The fact that it costs slightly more than my used 335 ($1909, including shipping, versus $1750) makes it a true bargain. The overall size fits me well, too: my Les Paul (and now the SG) was a little too small for someone like me, and after playing the Carvin, the 335 feels just slightly too big (no, I’m not selling it!).
In summary, I feel that, after more than three quarters of a century of electric guitar manufacture, Carvin has designed and built one that separates itself from the pack with a signature sound, and great comfort and feel, and that does not more than superficially resemble its competitors. That’s quite an accomplishment. From my perspective as resident skeptic, it’s practically miraculous. It’s not cheap, in the context of $199 Chinese knockoffs, but it’s worth every penny – you get everything you pay for, and, more importantly, every thing you need. It offers quality that offshore guitar manufacturers cannot match. Speaking as the owner of several terrific Fender basses and a couple of incredible Gibson electric guitars, this is the real deal. Carvin has nailed it with this one. Try one if you can.
-
Summary (Randy C)
If it has not been made clear by now, I never received the Carvin to review. The intention was to photograph the guitar in detail when I received it so the plan fell apart at that point. Thanks to LPDeluxe for interrupting his very busy week to drive over to his friend's studio and photograph the Carvin in situ, as it were. Bryan Davison also took some photos of the Carvin while it was in his possession. Bryan, please feel free to add any or all of your photos to this evaluation thread.
So, where to start? Several members found the guitar too heavy or awkward to play while several others found the light weight and balance to be close to ideal. Some members didn't care for the "generic" sound of the pickups while others thought that the pickups sounded great. There were complaints about the pickups being too "hot" and other comments noting that the pickups are not as "hot" as a typical humbucker. One member noted that the case was over-designed for its purpose while another member noted that it should be sturdier for transportation.
The two reviewers that were lukewarm about the sound of the Carvin pickups routinely play instruments with pickups that are very different than the Carvin devices. The two reviewers that were enthusiastic about the sound of the Carvin both play Gibson guitars (with humbuckers). The person who actually bought the guitar from me but did not contribute to the review (his testimony regarding the guitar presumably being obvious) plays a Fender single coil guitar.
How's that for mixing things up? A comment, based on my observation of politics for many decades: when both political parties are unhappy about the passage of a particular bill then be assured that the majority of the people who elected them will be content. Think about it …
The opinions were universal regarding the spectacular visual affect that the guitar creates on an individual who is seeing it for the first time. But again, there was seeming conflict, two members felt that it was "too pretty" for a working guitar. All agreed that the workmanship was at the highest level and that there was a great deal of attention to detail. I'll add a couple of observations based on Carvin construction, based on photos of the SH-550 and forty years of personal experience with the Carvin guitar that I bought (to replace a Les Paul AND a Stratocaster) back in the seventies.
These people don't take short cuts, there is no "typical" jack, for example, that depends on the friction of a 3/8 nut on the wooden body to secure the electrical connection. The jack is mounted to a steel plate that is secured to the body with four screws as shown in the photo below of my '78 Carvin:
The studs that support the bridge are not threaded into the wood body, like other guitars. Large, knurled internally threaded brass inserts are secured into the body and the studs are then threaded into these inserts. This distributes the load on the wooden structure, lowering unit stress in critical areas - there is no possibility of stripping wooden threads. Based on my Carvin DC-150 (and there is no reason to think that practices have changed) at every point where a part is attached to another part, engineering consideration has been given to the wear characteristics and the lifetime of the individual components that comprise the guitar.
This brings up another interesting point. There is a constant "background noise level" of complaints regarding traditional American guitar manufacturers. "They don't make 'em like they used to" and similar comments aren't unusual. That may be true of Carvin as well, the guitars are not made like they once were. I've not heard a single critical comment from a Carvin owner that suggests that the older instruments were better. I have an old one and it's very good - the new ones, based on all reviews available to me, are BETTER in workmanship, materials, finishes and overall quality. Too bad that I couldn't personally confirm this but I trust the comments of those who inspected the guitar up-close-and-personal.
One complaint that does sometimes surface is Carvin's customer interface. Since these instruments are not available from a music store (or a Big Box website) and can only be direct-ordered, there is a certain reluctance for a potential buyer to "get acquainted" with them (despite the fact that the instruments have a bullet-proof return policy).
My two experiences with the company have been courteous, brief, satisfying and without misunderstanding. However, it should be noted that I'm sixty-five years old with fifty years playing experience. I know guitar construction details; what works for me and what doesn't. In other words, when I called, I knew precisely what I wanted and there was no communication difficulty between me and the salesperson. Others may not have the calcified opinions that "guide" me, LOL.
I wish that I could have played the SH-550 for a while - I've been thinking about this guitar for over a year. But, as I said in the run-up to purchasing the instrument, I have no need for more semi-hollow guitars. So when a friend of one of the reviewers found the Carvin irresistible, it wasn't difficult for me to part with it, sight-unseen. (In point of fact, I could get by with only the L-5CES at this point in my life but jazz guitars are so darned BEAUTIFUL - even simple ones - that my interest level is always high.)
It is highly unlikely that most of you will ever play a Carvin - or even SEE one - the factory doesn't crank out the quantities that other American guitar manufacturers produce. For those considering a semi-hollow guitar, I'd urge you to read the Carvin return policy and then take a chance on this small company. You may end up with the value of your life - an instrument that will draw the attention of every guitarist that sees it. I've been a fan since 1978.
Cheers,
Randy C
-
Hi, good reviews. I have had a SH550 for over a year and would agree with most of what has been said. The work manship and quality of the car is excellent and clearly better than my friends E335. My experience with Carvin service staff was good, they responded quickly to any question I had and were always polite.
If I had to add any comments I would say the SH550 is closer to a more versatile chambered Les Paul than a E335. But with the split coils and semi hollow body it really can cover a lot of ground tone wise. It is not as loud unplugged as a E335.
My guitar has the tung oil neck and I would recommend it to anyone. It feels great. If I could change mine, I would perhaps go for a maple top with tung oil or stain finish to reduce the bling factor, but that is just personal choice. A great guitar and the one I play the most!
-
Bluedog, any chance of a few photos of your guitar?
-
I am at work at the moment, but will take some photos tonight an post. Spec of my guitar are: deep sunset burst on quilted maple, traditional headstock, gold hardware, 2 volume and 2 tone knobs, tung oil neck and abalone block inlays. As mentioned if I had my time again I would dial back the bling a bit, but it certainly looks pretty!
-
randyc,
Thank you so much for this project. It is by far the most honest and revealing process of reviewing an instrument I have ever seen.
What I enjoyed the most was the diversity of the testers. Each found likes and dislikes based on their preferences and expressed them in clear and rational manner. No unqualified emotion. If only all reviews could be this way.
Again, thank you.
Cheers,
Ron
-
Thanks, Bluedog, we'll look forward to your photos !
Adding to your reference regarding the Carvin tung oil neck finish; as a woodworker of many years practise I like natural oil finishes - even for the body of a guitar. (I make my own boiled-linseed oil finish for "art" projects but overcoat with a layer of polyurethane if wear or liquid resistance must be considered.)
The oil finishes are not for everyone, however ... advantages are quick and easy touch-up (to any desired level of gloss) adding minimal thickness to the finish. Disadvantages are lack of protection against liquids - especially those containing alcohol.
I've done some minor gunsmithing over the years (I have a small metalworking shop - my boy and I and enjoy skeet, trap and target shooting), stockmaking is a natural derivative of this hobby. Tung oil has always been my finish of choice for rifle stocks - the finish damages fairly easily but can be repaired just as easily. It is also appropriate for fine furniture.
Sprayed lacquer finish is the conventional finish for most hollow-body guitars - it's desirable for economical and accoustic purposes but is not easily repaired by most musicians. "French polishing" is the best finish for accoustic musical instruments - shellac and linseed oil being the basic components of the process combined with a LOT of labor. An internet search will provide more information about this technique than most musicians want to know, LOL.
Sorry to divert from the topic but it is unusual to find a musician that is aware of finishes other than those routinely provided by the factory. (As a matter of interest, LPDeluxe is also knowledgeable about this topic, as readers of this forum have noted from his past posts regarding Italian fine violin makers of centuries past ...)
Cheers,
RandyC
PS: Ron, thanks for your comments - you obviously understand how and why we set up the review process.Last edited by randyc; 07-28-2010 at 10:25 PM. Reason: add PS
-
RandyC,
I don't want to divert from the topic either, but your comments about finishes has brought up a number of things I'd like to ask about.
Can I PM you on this?
Cheers,
Ron
-
Of course, Ron.
-
A good point. This is a very lively guitar, which I somehow failed to mention. A lot of guitars feel "dead" in your hands (or, anyway, in mine), and the Carvin is not like that. I personally love the sense that the amp and guitar are interacting and making their own music together. Had I not bonded so thoroughly with my 335, this could be its replacement!
Originally Posted by Bluedog
-
I've been waiting for these reviews and they did not disappoint. Thanks everyone for your thoughts, efforts, and money spent on shipping costs. Maybe one of these will find its way under my tree six months from now?
-
Here's every photo I have that would upload. Thanks to all who have commented so far for your kind words about the evaluations. And thanks again to Randy for getting this whole thing going (and for letting me be a part of the evaluation). If any of you have any further questions about the guitar, feel free to send me a PM, or just ask it on this thread. Someone else may be wondering the same thing.
-
This is fantastic reading guys! The bottom line is exactly how it should be - quite different from every reviewer but with a lot of basic commonalities. Funny how a guitar feels so different to various players, it shows that it's not just a tool. Or at least a very personal tool. I'm sure you've all had this boy-like sparkling in your eyes when you opened up the case for the first time. And you succeeded brilliantly to transfer it to your reviews. I loved reading it! Thanks a lot to all that were involved and especially to Randy for starting off this project. I still cannot stop grinning that he has never seen the guitar he has initially paid for.
After reading your reviews, am I closer to ordering one of those beauties? No. The configuration I would choose would cost 3,325,- Euros. For that kind of money I would have other guitars in mind first. But will I pay even more attention to the sound of any Carvin I might encounter? Definitely yes.
-
Great reviews, everyone. Thanks to you all for your hard work-it was a great read, and well worth the time you all put in.
-
Excellent job, guys! I'm glad I opted out of being on the review team this time, because even though it appears to be a great value, I couldn't afford it right now unless I sold my 35-year-old Martin ... and then my son would never speak to me again!
-
I am new to this, but hopefully I have attached photos of my SH550. Main difference to the other photos is the Tung oil neck and 4 knobs. If I had my time again I would get the tung oil finish on the entire guitar and perhaps a koa top. Just for a less "bling" look.
-
Here are bluedog's photos of his SH550 pulled from the zip file... nice looking guitar!
-
Yeh, but I thought he said something about "bling"?
Reply With Quote
Improvisation is about listening
Today, 07:34 AM in Improvisation