Good review Heritage 575 vs Howard Roberts

[TedBPhx]

Looks like Heritage is keeping up the Gibson QC tradition

https://youtu.be/a73AQXazYN4

[Jimmy blue note]

Ouch! For all the strengths and undeniable precedent setting traditions Heritage is the torch holder of, it's not a secret that good quality control is a part of anything the public is going to expect. I worked for a well respected Japanese guitar company and there were many less egregious offenses that qualified any guitar no matter the price point, to be rejected outright. Finish around the F holes, bridge and saddle issues, all things well known to be a beef with poorly built archtops, well known issues that can't be news to the management of Heritage.
Gotta say too, she's reviewing a green guitar. I have never played a green guitar that sounded and felt anything but "metallic" as she described it. It starts sounding better within weeks of the top being under tension, nitro cures and and breaks in noticeably in the first year of being played. So it's not really a fair review of the potential of her guitar. Who knows, maybe that's what she's got, or maybe it becomes a gem among gems acoustically, and by extension even better electrically, (if a guitar feels more responsive, a good player's touch can impart more nuance into the guitar even played plugged in; its a symbiotic relationship), who knows?
Makes me wonder if the Heritage folks ever sit down and have a behind the scenes meeting where the president says "Why do customers notice things we don't? And why does Eastman, Benedetto, Sadowsky, Campellone, Fujigen, Ibanez and even Asian built Epiphone care more about detail than Heritage?"
They've got a great guitar...being outdone on the little details. Ouch.

[Marty Grass]

This is a useful review but maybe overcritical.

The buffing compound on the f hole edges shouldn't be there. It's easy to remove. I went through that a decade ago with a Heritage. It shouldn't have left the factory that way, and the dealer should also have wiped it out.

The neck edges are the way the model was built since inception and is the way Gibson did it back in the day. Some may not prefer it. Some also may prefer binding on the neck. The H-575 has that.

The bridge compensation is set up for a wound G string. Drop in replacements aren't that expensive.

The acoustic sound beats the Howard Roberts Fusion, but that isn't saying much. The H-575 is an electric guitar fundamentally IMO. The Sweet 16 might have been a better option for her if she is going for an acoustic instrument.

Here is another review of two H-575s.

[skiboyny]

I think the video review is very well done. At the end of the day she did state that it was the Best electric jazz guitar sound she had heard. The deficiencies are nothing new, but should be pointed out. You can decide where your priorities are at.

[wzpgsr]

The bridge compensation is set up for a wound G string.

Good point.

A) As a reviewer, she perhaps should have been aware of this and strung the guitar properly, or at least understood the implications of not doing so.

And/or:

B) Whoever sold her the guitar should have been aware of this and strung the guitar properly.

[mr. beaumont]

I'll post my review about a blender versus my new lawn mower later.

[tbeltrans]

I'll post my review about a blender versus my new lawn mower later.

I'll take the blender since I live in a condo and have no need for a lawn mower.

Tony

[MtnCat]

As Marty Grass stated, "The bridge compensation is set up for a wound G string."

A quick and dirty, low cost experiment would have solved the problem.
Intonation at the 12th fret; sharp = skinny, flat = fat. (!)

For example, if she had an plain .018, move up to .020 or .022.
If a wound string would be of interest, do the same.
Assuming no change in bridge base location and no change in bridge height.
Not many Euro's spent relative to her expensive purchase.

I've done this more times than I can remember on flat tops and archtops.
I stumbled across that result on a late 70's Westerly Guild F-50 blond, more decades ago than I care to admit.

[John A.]

It struck me as mostly nonsense. If she thought a 575 would have a more acoustic sound that’s her failure to research it, not a deficiency in the guitar. Ditto with the fingerboard edges. Ditto for the unpainted f-hole. The bridge issue seems more serious, though. Even if it was compensated for a wound G it shouldn’t be that sharp.

Several other details not worth getting into gave me the sense that doesn’t really know what she’s talking about.

[2bornot2bop]

Looks like Heritage is keeping up the Gibson QC tradition

https://youtu.be/a73AQXazYN4

At least they’re still being built. Good luck getting a new ES175.

[jazzkritter]

Not really impressed with someone getting rid of a floating pup archtop and replacing it with a dual pup top mount and then expecting a good acoustic sound out of it. (I’ve seen one or two of her videos, as JohnA says, not really sure her knowledge is all that vast.)

Agree with Marty, the f holes look like buffing compound which one should know is a simple correction. Should it have left Heritage QC? I know squat about Heritage.

Outstanding QC takes outstanding QC people. As Jimmy says, there are makers out there with outstanding QC. My Ibanez PM200 was a ‘second’ due to a finish imperfection. The mark is barely visible, really requires side lighting to spot. My point is I paid less for it thanks to someone like Jimmy standing up and saying no way this is acceptable. It’s a 2014, so I suspect it wasn’t him.

So why is the American division of an Asian company able to motivate American workers to excel at QC, while Heritage, Gibson can’t seem to? .
Same as the auto industry… American plants of Toyota or Honda put out some fine vehicles. Yet just like Gibson, an American car company product is a crap shoot: may or may not be quality.
Interesting question.

[Spook410]

Quality control does not, to quote Elon Musk, rival the complexity of the human soul.

It costs money. It requires a business to develop processes and to have these documented and executed in a repeatable way. Then the process is frequently audited for compliance and is subject to constant improvement. It means you develop a culture where quality is more important than the individual QC staff or the immediate managers delivery numbers.

The common failure for smaller companies is that they rely on individuals rather than process. You get a good QC person and supportive management, you get good QC for awhile. You get a lazy one or a manager looking for short cuts, you get bad QC. This can even extend to large companies that know better.