-
Not that I'm in the market, but someone mentioned Lowden "classicals" to me to other day. I wasn't even aware they made nylon-stringers so I went to take a look and indeed, they have a "Jazz" series.
Nice looking, though clearly not classicals but shapes based on their parlour and what appears to be a concert of jumbo.
The sound in the couple of demo videos I listened to is pretty underwhelming to me, or downright ugly with piezo quack or this:
(usually Teja doesn't give the impression he had a bad day...)
Anyone have experience with guitars of this series?
-
09-05-2023 09:43 AM
-
Something really doesn't sound right in this recording.
-
I'd be really curious to try a real one because I know it's not easy to build a good sounding classical and this sounds like a good recording of a bad guitar.
So many ways to make a bad recording, lots of wrong turns in the signal chain. Lowden has his experience in the steel string design and classical is a far cry from adapting steel design downscaled to a classical size with nylon strings.
Lowden's steel guitars are built for big air: Deep body size and resonance with projection. Classical is kind of the other end of the spectrum, very light driving force on a very light top. Maybe that's why he doesn't refer to it as a classical but rather a jazz crossover. He may be experienced, but you can hear while the video is playing it kinda sounds more like a banjo: fast fundamental and fast envelope decay, sometimes that translates to loud and papery nasal.
I'm really curious to hear this guitar in person, and after a year of playing in. The video does the guitar a disservice IMO. I wonder if George watched and approved it.
-
I like your analysis. My first thought was that it sounded like a resonator guitar.
Originally Posted by Jimmy blue note
-
Listened through some good computer speakers.
Tough one. It doesn't sound bad to me...but it also doesn't really sound like what I'd want a jazz nylon string guitar to sound like. There's something in the midrange I kind of like, but the bass and treble wasn't doing it for me.
I thought at first the plugged in sound was better, but the trebles still sounded pretty weak.
Think I'll stick to my $500 Yamaha.
*Did a second listen through my phone. If I had done that first I never would have given it a second chance.
-
Sounds like he's pulling on the strings too hard, so they clack on the fretboard. String zing, which I don't like, but that's personal taste.
-
To me it sounds like there is some sort of acoustical distortion from the lower strings of the guitar.
-
These are WAAAAY too expensive - really nicely built + pretty but the pure acoustic tone is WEAK !!!! Check out our friend Tim Lerch on a BUDGET Yamaha Nylonstring (that is very comfortable to play for guys who are not used to a normal classical neck) and the tone he gets out of it :
My own gigging nylonstring is a $ 650 Cordoba Fusion-12 with a solid spruce top, piezo-pickup+mic preamp and a super comfy neck shape. The next step up for me would be a custom built
guitar which would cost about the same what this Lowden costs - and it'll blow it away.
-
Either you got a lucky one or you bought it before their QC took a nose dive (the price could suggest that; the 14-fret version of that same guitar I had for a (very) blue monday cost almost 900€ new here. Originally Posted by gitman
Indeed, Lowdens are expensive (and I've heard a rumour that their nylon stringers are built somewhere in the far east?!). It'd be interesting indeed to compare one to my Cabaret, which cost about half the price of that WL 35.
In this recording it does sound quite good though - possibly because played by someone who knows how to get a good sound out of nylon strings?
-
It sounds like he was tuned in some sort of open tuning and forgot, playing in standard tuning fingerings. Or it was just badly out of tune. Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
But even then, the tone of the instrument was unappealing in either of the videos.
-
Even in the Sor recording? I'd have to hear a side-by-side recording with a standard classical or a Torres-style guitar but I thought it sounded pretty good and appropriate. Originally Posted by Cunamara
It suits me if it doesn't have that certain something for me
but unappealing is indeed a label that applies to about every Lowden I've heard. I like Irish beer and butter, the rest doesn't really do it for me 
-
Lowden guitars have been around since the 80's, more than 40 years , changed ownership several times but always stuck to the steelstring-models and their own specific designs,
a true alternative to the ubiquitous Martin/Gibson-inspired shapes and sizes. Always had their own sound, too ... I guess it's more a marketing-driven idea than anything else that made them foray into the world of nylonstring guitars,
a need to broaden their offerings and maybe gain a different group of customers but in my ears they failed re the SOUND of these models. As has been mentioned before, the design and construction of of a high-end concert/nylonstring guitar is very different from that for a steelstring model.
What I also don't get : what kind of tone are they after ? When I listen to the really good Jazz players who took up the nylonstring guitar (some after having started out or something else) I see that they generally use "normal" classical guitars, usually hand-built and very fine instruments, for the TONE these guitars can deliver. Just listen to Earl Klugh, Ralph Towner, Romero Lubambo, Gene Bertoncini, Chet Atkins, Al DiMeola, Kevin Seddiki and many others - the tones they achieve are deep, balanced, warm and sometimes bright but not bland. It takes long practice and dedication to achieve good tone on any guitar , whether it's played with fingers (nail+no nail) or with a flatpick but proficiency on steel strings has NO meaning when it comes to achieving good tone on nylon strings (and vice versa of course), it's a very different ball game. I've struggled my whole life with this dilemma .... There is this saying among students of the classical guitar : I'm off, back to pumping nylon .....
So, is it simply the feel of nylon strings they are after and is that why they call them "Jazz" models ? Is it not just as important for the Jazz player that his guitar speaks fast, has a deep and warm tone that can be sculpted by the way the string is plucked ? Did they go at it thinking that the player will automatically use some sort of pickup to help overcome the acoustic deficiencies, that it's chosen only because it's comfortable and pretty and made with fine, rare and expensive woods , made by a renowned workshop ?
I discussed this topic before, in person, with the owner of LAKEWOOD guitars of Germany since I had this same problem with their line of nylonstring guitars - only theirs are considerably cheaper than the Lowden offering.
The answers I got told me that I'm not too far off with my personal assumptions and analysis ... it's a market after all and the same known rules apply just like everywhere else.
-
Chet Atkins having a nice, warm sound? Not the association I have - that's exactly the kind of sound I don't want!
From what I understand George (?) Lowden does build concert-level classicals on a personal basis, outside of the off-the-shelf line-up (more or less factory built I presume).
I did come across 1 demo video where the instrument sounds thunderous (with and without pickup) flatpicked - too bass-heavy to my taste but like a similar-sized "folk" guitar without the steel-string jingle jangle.
It's also true that many cross-over guitars sound puny and uninteresting if not strident when you compare them to a classical. That goes for the Martins, even more so for the Taylors. I had a little chat with someone at Breedlove about their nylon-stringers (some seem to sound nice enough) and he thought they're hardly different in construction from their steel-string instruments. That could work well enough for recordings and/or playing amplified but for pure acoustic playing it isn't ideal of course.
FWIW, it has nothing to do with using X-bracing per se. Well executed that is actually a more efficient bracing than the usual fan-bracing and used as early as the 1850s in "classical" guitars.
EDIT:
I'm convinced that's the case of just about every instrument sold with (designed around...) a pickup... Originally Posted by gitman
-
This era Chet Atkins. Which, to me, is a completely fine classical guitar tone.
-
I agree with your assessment. Originally Posted by RJVB
Chet Atkins having a nice, warm sound? Not the association I have - that's exactly the kind of sound I don't want!
From what I understand George (?) Lowden does build concert-level classicals on a personal basis, outside of the off-the-shelf line-up (more or less factory built I presume).
I did come across 1 demo video where the instrument sounds thunderous (with and without pickup) flatpicked - too bass-heavy to my taste but like a similar-sized "folk" guitar without the steel-string jingle jangle.
It's also true that many cross-over guitars sound puny and uninteresting if not strident when you compare them to a classical. That goes for the Martins, even more so for the Taylors. I had a little chat with someone at Breedlove about their nylon-stringers (some seem to sound nice enough) and he thought they're hardly different in construction from their steel-string instruments. That could work well enough for recordings and/or playing amplified but for pure acoustic playing it isn't ideal of course.
FWIW, it has nothing to do with using X-bracing per se. Well executed that is actually a more efficient bracing than the usual fan-bracing and used as early as the 1850s in "classical" guitars.
EDIT:
I'm convinced that's the case of just about every instrument sold with (designed around...) a pickup...
And granted, Chet Atkins' playing with a thumb-pick did not always sound as thick, warm and buttery as it could have but he was certainly able to do so.
What we don't have as examples are so many of his recordings that are NOT on youtube...
-
Well, yes, take a classical guitar, play it fingerstyle, record it with an external mic and you get a classical guitar tone even if you use a thumb pick. Originally Posted by AllanAllen
I don't know if he was always recorded with a single mic pointing at the soundhole though. That's not the ideal location unless you want a really warm/bassy sound.
I was interested in this X-braced CG-sized jumbo-shape but didn't want to risk commissioning one based on just a single recording made that same way:
-
Originally Posted by RJVB
You can't trust that recording, it's drenched in reverb. That's no way to demo an acoustic guitar.
-
Exactly, I didn't. Originally Posted by AllanAllen
-
The player is fine but he picks this guitar just as he would do so on a steelstring model - first "mistake" . The mic placement and the post-production treatment also does not help in conveying a believable impression of the guitars sound, dynamic capability, variety of tone color , etc.
It just take a little more effort to make something worthwhile , especially when you're advertising an expensive instrument. Some dealers explicitly list the recording chain in detail , which is fine and it tells the viewer/listener something - others omit this completely, just point an iPhone and press "record" which is just as viable. If I'd be shopping for an "off the rack" Martin D18, a Taylor, a Gibson J50 then MAYBE I'd trust the video - if there is one - and buy online, un-seen/un-heard. Anything more exotic and I would rather test it out in person, have a guaranteed return-window/option or have someone check it out in person who I can trust.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos