Acoustics

eggman · Post by **eggman** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:50 am

Howdy,

I've never owned a Rickenbacker acoustic. Since 1997 I HAVE owned a Martin D-28 and it sounds wonderful with it's Rosewood back and sides.
I'm not trying to be contentious with Rickenbacker enthusiasts; I'm ONE of them! I adore the electrics, but I'm intrigued by the relatively new line of beautiful acoustics.
Who here owns Martin and Rickenbacker acoustics?
Can you please compare the two here in terms of tone, playability, et al?

Respectfully,
Larry Carroll

PS: I think Martin and Rickenbacker are the two best guitar makers in the world. Just looking for comparisons on thier acoustics.

porge · Post by **porge** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:10 pm

As a three Martin kinda guy ('23 0-18, '76 D-18, '91 000-28 currently, but have had 8 other 'D's), I'm intersted to hear as well...

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:15 pm

I don't own either, but I have played both....the Martin on a regular basis & the Ric only twice.

My impressions were that the Martin is the best acoustic that I have ever played, with a fantastic balanced sound & a lovely 'solid' feel about it. However, the Ric suprised me. It was very light (in weight) in comparison, but it had a really beautiful sound & was as easy to play as the Martin. This is purely subjective, but the Rics fireglo finish & superb headstock gave it the edge on looks.

The bottom line is that they are both top notch, world class acoustics that IMO compare very well with each other, but they are different & they feel different too.

eggman · Post by **eggman** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:13 am

Anthony,

Thanks for the honest appraisal. I sure hope this thread grows. Rickenbacker lovers shouldn't feel intimidated; after all, Rickenbacker is the "new kid on the block" compared to Martin(with respect to acoustic guitars)

Larry

longhouse · Post by **longhouse** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:06 am

I A/B'd the Ric Jumbos (maple and rosewood [sides and back])against every Martin, Gibson, Taylor, etc. at Dave's Guitars. The Shasta (?) sounded a bit compressed and quiet, but the Comstock (maple Ric) outclassed them all in playability, detail, versatility, and every other way I could think of. When fingerpicked, the notes bloomed and sparkled. It shimmered and hummed when strummed. I've not forgiven myself for NOT buying it. There were two Lowden guitars there which were maybe the best instruments I've ever used for fingerpicking, but overall, the Ric Comstock was the best in the store.

I have a Gibson J100 and Tacoma Chief, both of which are wonderful guitars -one day I will add a Ric acoustic to the collection.

And consider this: Rickenbacker does NOT use Micarta on their guitars.

Noel

eggman · Post by **eggman** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:20 am

Noel,

Not to take my own thread off on a tangent, but what's wrong with Micarta? I ask because my Martin D-28 has a Micarta nut and saddle! Thanks

Larry

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 6:58 am

I'm a bit puzzled, too. Both bakelite and Micarta are tradenames for phenolic.

melibreits · Post by **melibreits** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:47 am

My Ric acoustic is a fireglo Comstock, and Noel is absolutely right about them.... The Comstock has a much brighter sound than a Martin, and has a fabulously percussive and booming tone in the bass notes; very unique-sounding, and absolutely wonderful.

longhouse · Post by **longhouse** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:11 pm

Call me a Luddite; I'm just against the use of plastic/bakelite/micarta for bridges, fingerboards, etc.* It's certainly OK for nuts and saddles. Not sure how it will be when these guitars are vintage instruments.
Old fashioned perhaps.
nOel

*I make an exception for the Gretsch Hawaiian with its pearloid fingerboard

byu · Post by **byu** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 6:34 pm

I have a Ric 700c/12 (solid spruce top & solid maple back & sides) & 730s (solid spruce top & solid rosewood back & sides) and a Martin D15 & D12-1. I can't really compare them tonally since they're all different materials (D15 is solid mahogany, D12-1 is solid spruce top, solid mahogany back & laminate mahogany sides). Makes for good mixing when recording. I can say the workmanship on both is superb. The Rics have better playability. The Martins smell better. All sound fantastic in their own way.

Cheers,
Bill

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:37 pm

Mr Hall.... How come Ric doesn't use pickguards on the acoustics?

And have you ever considered making a Ric acoustic/electric?

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:09 pm

Kent, therre is an E3 electronics option available on the acoustics. This was briefly discussed here:

../7/54651.html"#EECD9C">

ozover50 · Post by **ozover50** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:30 pm

IF RIC ever starts taking orders again, I'd take the E3 option. May not happen in our lifetime, however.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:11 am

We originally planned to supply pickguards and the prototypes had them. However, we quickly learned that everyone had a fairly specific idea as to the type they wanted. Given that most acoustic pickguards today are of the scissors-cut-to-fit variety and the materials commonly available at most music stores, we decided to leave that up to the customer. After all, it's difficult to change a pickguard after it's installed but nothing to add one later.

Howard, you may be right if the cost of living in Orange county stays as it is.

loverickbass · Post by **loverickbass** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:18 am

John,

Did you guys make many acoustics in the 70s and 80s. From what I read it started in the 60s but I don't hear of much acoustic talk up until modern times. I guess what I'm really asking is where can I find a little history of RIC acoustics?

Cole