The question for me has been, does the Backpacker have a design that is easier to actually backpack with? If I just want a travel guitar - which is the focus of this vid - then yes, just get a scaled-down version of a "real" acoustic guitar. If I actually wanted one to backpack with (and it's right in the name of the Martin model), it might be easier to use the Martin. Maybe it's not quite accurately billed as a "travel guitar."
He seems to have missed the whole point from my perspective. The issue is travel. Is it small and light so it travels well and is the sound good enough that you can enjoy playing/practicing while you're away from your 'real' guitars?
Same here. The question for me has been, does the Backpacker have a design that is easier to actually backpack with? If I just want a travel guitar - which is the focus of this vid - then yes, just get a scaled-down version of a "real" acoustic guitar. If I actually wanted one to backpack with (and it's right in the name of the Martin model), it might be easier to use the Martin. Maybe it's not quite accurately billed as a "travel guitar."
seems like the martin is like a commando guitar. its more for well. like backpacking. u can take it any were because of its shape. the other 2 more like real guitars but won't make it up everaest. i thought more of u would like the sound of the martin. thanks for all comments. i need 1 of these for my car.
Thank you for sharing the comparison and for giving a side to side sound comparison. All of them sounded decent, with the smallest body traveler having a brighter sound though a little less full, what you would expect from a smaller resonance chamber. I agree with a few of the comments below, though, it seems what is missing is an evaluation based on their portability and ruggedness. It seemed only the one with the smallest resonance chamber seemed to be designed for travel. The other ones seemed only slightly smaller than a regular guitar and not significantly smaller to make them easier to travel with. I saw a travel model that had the strings go all the way to the bottom of the chamber, which seemed to be a good idea to keep the longest scale length possible and yet keep the length shorter. It seemed, too, the "chop off" head design also adds to the playable length while shortening the actual length. It would be interesting to combine all the way to bottom strings with the chop off head for maximum portability and shorter length compared to scale length. It seems, too, that one could keep the resonant chamber narrow, as it the smallest of the travel guitars here, but maybe add to its depth, making a larger resonance chamber for the same width. The last item that might be worth integrated is some kind of attachable part that allows the smaller chamber to rest on the lap (I could imagine several homemade items that could do this and not significantly add to packed travel size). I notice a few designs having this, but also charging an arm and a leg for the guitar.
The Martin Backpaper guitar is a rather old design. And it is still competitive. When you are looking for a travel guitar the backpaper is still a very great option. I would have the martin backpaper and a normal guitar. And if I really I use a lot travel guitars I would own a normal guitar, also the backpaper, and also would buy the other two you are exposing. Today I have several guitars and as a travel guitar an argentinian Orellano travel guitar classical electroacoustic. Perhaps not as good as the guitars that you comment but the price is 12% of the martin backpaper and in travel guitars price counts as it usually a guitar that you usually put on risk charging it on bus, train, dangerous neighbourhoods, vacation, etc. Thanks for your interesting review greetings from argentina.
I've looked hard for a good comparison of travelers. This is the first video, hard to believe, that compares overall dimensions and not just fret board. Thank you. Would have liked to see the Washburn Rover included.
Very nice job. You showed and described all of the important features and differences between these Martin models. How do you think the Washburn Rover compares to the Backpacker?
Agree, kind neck heavy can be advantage and the two string strikes do not say much about guitars.. Looks rather he want to make us to believe the first option is the best choice..
comparison,,,, sorry I typed wrong... I "m looking for a practice tool, not necessarily with sound, but to practice the neck and become very performant in knowing all the notes on the guitar neck... What do you think of that ?
I'm still waiting for a manufacturer to make a carbon fiber travel guitar the same size/shape as the Martin Backpacker. I mean, portability is not enough for a traveller guitar. It has to be stable in humid or dry weather, be rugged and lightweight and keep in tune in any condition.
My traveler nut broke because it could not clamp down on the high e enough. .. the high e kept slipping. I tightened it more and more until the nut peeled up and broke
I do appreciate the comparison. Though I prefer a smaller scale length so what seemed to be made out as a positive of a Fender 25.5 isn't one to me. And the Backpacker, in my opinion, sounded the best, with the Traveler getting noticeable fret buzz. Plus width is just as important as length to me, and weight is most important in a travel guitar. I'd have appreciated a weight comparison - though as that varies so much it would need to be with at least, say, five examples of each, which I understand is prohibitive. I also want to know about truss rods. In a guitar that's going to be moving around and subjected to wear and temperature changes that's really almost my most important concern, and I can't seem to find solid information on that front.
I'm always disappointed when a maker puts all the effort into making a headless travel guitar and then makes it full scale. What I want is the most compact guitar that's possible - I'm sure when it comes to TRAVEL guitars most of us would favour short-scales if it increases portability.
The Backpacker is still far better suited to the purpose its name alludes to; being strapped to the outside of a pack and carried into the wilderness. While the review points out the length difference, that is more an issue for "civilized" travel where you're worried about airline carry-on restrictions. On a backpacking trip, the narrower build of the Backpacker overall makes it a pretty seamless fit with the rest of my gear, even with a few extra inches of length.
Cool, but I just came from another comparison video and something you can take note of is they went, actually played the guitar, edited it to go from one guitar to the other without pause, and did it several times so people could get a handle on how they really sound playing different kinds of songs. Also it would be nice to be able to hear how the different pickups sound.
Nice comparison. Very well balanced. And no sales pitch. No editorial comments at all. But of course, as we know, teh youtube forum is populated with expert haters.....
traveler is really convenient and has some cool little functions but when it comes to sound the Martin just sounds so much better. putting the backpacker between them in the sound test acts as a buffer so you don't notice it so much (anything sounds better than the backpacker lol). Have another listen by skipping between 2:32 and 2:52. When it comes down to it, you don't want to spend your money on the wrong guitar because of a gimmick. Yes the traveler is a bit shorter.......but by how much that will really effect your life? They are both travel guitars, both very short. Go for the better sound and enjoy playing.
This was good from the standpoint of purely musician perspective, how does it sound, how does it play kind of thing, but doesn't really address anything from the standpoint of.... travel, which I would think is the point of having a piece of gear like this. Personally, I'm a backpacker so I'm just as interested in things like weight, does it break down, if so how does it break down and store when traveling, what does that look like as far as the shape and how compact it is. Sound and all that is important, don't get me wrong, but if that's all I'm worried about then why get a traveler? On the surface, the martin seems like it would travel the best out of the three, mostly because of the more narrow body.
I highly doubt that. Yes it's often said that bigger necks provide more/better tone, but when the body is this small I don't think that makes any difference. To the point: I don't see any reason why anyone would get the Martin, unless you're going hiking, you really have no room to carry any larger bodied guitar and are still desperate to bring a guitar with you.
Guys. I'd like to clear my point :3 I said Heavy necks. Not Large. They are probably heave coz the wood is dense. That makes it more resonant. And, the fact that the body is visibly much lighter means the wood is less dense there. There's a big air column to vibrate and nothing to muffle it. Which makes for a loud sound. Loud+ Good tone. What more could you ask for in an Acoustic? And as for it having less bass, etc. It's a travel guitar I doubt anyone would gig with it :P Cheers!
The point of the backpacker isn’t to be a normal “travel” guitar. It’s to carry it up a mountain hooked to your backpack. Martin has travel guitars that would have been better for this comparison.
Yes. The intended use is right in the name. I think it's a little unfair to lump it in with travel guitars, which have all kinds of wiggler room to maximize the sound that the Martin does not.
The Martin back packer is the worst. It feels too odd, sounds bad, and most of all costs way too much for what it is. It's like $360 at the store I was at. It should be like $50 at the very most. Those other guitars are pretty good though
I used to own a Backpacker- you can get them for $200 all day long, or even $150 used. And they play fine once you have them on a strap (which is kinda mandatory, due to the shape). There's also no guitar that's more convenient when traveling. When I deploy overseas and have limited amounts of room, that's what I would choose.
I had a Martin backpacker for a very brief period of time... I returned it immediately, such a piece of garbage (NOT a Martin Guitar at all!). Lesson learned; always try before you buy.
The traveler sounds like a kids toy guitar...and no headstock just lo0ks stupid..LOL... Yeah, I would take the backpacker, throw it in the truck, wont hurt it to get sat on stepped on, or fall out the door....
A lot people will think I'm wrong but I'm still gonna say it
I like the Martin backpacker better than other travel guitar.
And the backpacker is made of all solid tonewoods...Will be even better when it ages
Why not ? I've got one of those, the sound is quite interesting.
Lol, I am under 5 ft tall so even my 3/4 guitar is full-seized enouhg to make carrying it around cumbersome...the Backpacker is just the ticket...
The question for me has been, does the Backpacker have a design that is easier to actually backpack with?
If I just want a travel guitar - which is the focus of this vid - then yes, just get a scaled-down version of a "real" acoustic guitar. If I actually wanted one to backpack with (and it's right in the name of the Martin model), it might be easier to use the Martin. Maybe it's not quite accurately billed as a "travel guitar."
He seems to have missed the whole point from my perspective. The issue is travel. Is it small and light so it travels well and is the sound good enough that you can enjoy playing/practicing while you're away from your 'real' guitars?
Same here. The question for me has been, does the Backpacker have a design that is easier to actually backpack with?
If I just want a travel guitar - which is the focus of this vid - then yes, just get a scaled-down version of a "real" acoustic guitar. If I actually wanted one to backpack with (and it's right in the name of the Martin model), it might be easier to use the Martin. Maybe it's not quite accurately billed as a "travel guitar."
seems like the martin is like a commando guitar. its more for well. like backpacking. u can take it any were because of its shape. the other 2 more like real guitars but won't make it up everaest. i thought more of u would like the sound of the martin. thanks for all comments. i need 1 of these for my car.
Yes. The intended use is right in the name.
Thank you for sharing the comparison and for giving a side to side sound comparison. All of them sounded decent, with the smallest body traveler having a brighter sound though a little less full, what you would expect from a smaller resonance chamber. I agree with a few of the comments below, though, it seems what is missing is an evaluation based on their portability and ruggedness. It seemed only the one with the smallest resonance chamber seemed to be designed for travel. The other ones seemed only slightly smaller than a regular guitar and not significantly smaller to make them easier to travel with. I saw a travel model that had the strings go all the way to the bottom of the chamber, which seemed to be a good idea to keep the longest scale length possible and yet keep the length shorter. It seemed, too, the "chop off" head design also adds to the playable length while shortening the actual length. It would be interesting to combine all the way to bottom strings with the chop off head for maximum portability and shorter length compared to scale length. It seems, too, that one could keep the resonant chamber narrow, as it the smallest of the travel guitars here, but maybe add to its depth, making a larger resonance chamber for the same width. The last item that might be worth integrated is some kind of attachable part that allows the smaller chamber to rest on the lap (I could imagine several homemade items that could do this and not significantly add to packed travel size). I notice a few designs having this, but also charging an arm and a leg for the guitar.
The Martin Backpaper guitar is a rather old design. And it is still competitive. When you are looking for a travel guitar the backpaper is still a very great option. I would have the martin backpaper and a normal guitar. And if I really I use a lot travel guitars I would own a normal guitar, also the backpaper, and also would buy the other two you are exposing.
Today I have several guitars and as a travel guitar an argentinian Orellano travel guitar classical electroacoustic. Perhaps not as good as the guitars that you comment but the price is 12% of the martin backpaper and in travel guitars price counts as it usually a guitar that you usually put on risk charging it on bus, train, dangerous neighbourhoods, vacation, etc. Thanks for your interesting review greetings from argentina.
I've looked hard for a good comparison of travelers. This is the first video, hard to believe, that compares overall dimensions and not just fret board. Thank you. Would have liked to see the Washburn Rover included.
Very nice job. You showed and described all of the important features and differences between these Martin models. How do you think the Washburn Rover compares to the Backpacker?
Ha ha, I love the look of disappointment when he describes the length of the competitors.
I bought the Martin LX1. Shouldve been in there in lieu of the back packer
I'd much prefer an unbiased comparison, not a sales pitch. and what does this "neck heavy" nonsense have to do with anything!
Some people do prefere neck heavy guitars, Some not... many don't give a crap :)
Agree, kind neck heavy can be advantage and the two string strikes do not say much about guitars.. Looks rather he want to make us to believe the first option is the best choice..
The Taylor Baby had the best sound.
comparison,,,, sorry I typed wrong... I "m looking for a practice tool, not necessarily with sound, but to practice the neck and become very performant in knowing all the notes on the guitar neck... What do you think of that ?
I'm still waiting for a manufacturer to make a carbon fiber travel guitar the same size/shape as the Martin Backpacker.
I mean, portability is not enough for a traveller guitar. It has to be stable in humid or dry weather, be rugged and lightweight and keep in tune in any condition.
Our friends over at KLOS might have a solution for you. klosguitars.com/pages/feature-page
@@travelerguitar Thanks! It looks nice
oh so bold and brave to compare yours to the best-sellers. and it's beating them 😀
My traveler nut broke because it could not clamp down on the high e enough. .. the high e kept slipping. I tightened it more and more until the nut peeled up and broke
I do appreciate the comparison. Though I prefer a smaller scale length so what seemed to be made out as a positive of a Fender 25.5 isn't one to me. And the Backpacker, in my opinion, sounded the best, with the Traveler getting noticeable fret buzz.
Plus width is just as important as length to me, and weight is most important in a travel guitar. I'd have appreciated a weight comparison - though as that varies so much it would need to be with at least, say, five examples of each, which I understand is prohibitive.
I also want to know about truss rods. In a guitar that's going to be moving around and subjected to wear and temperature changes that's really almost my most important concern, and I can't seem to find solid information on that front.
I'm always disappointed when a maker puts all the effort into making a headless travel guitar and then makes it full scale. What I want is the most compact guitar that's possible - I'm sure when it comes to TRAVEL guitars most of us would favour short-scales if it increases portability.
Martin LX1?
You are too old for that hair sir.
Some men his age got no hair..
The Backpacker is still far better suited to the purpose its name alludes to; being strapped to the outside of a pack and carried into the wilderness. While the review points out the length difference, that is more an issue for "civilized" travel where you're worried about airline carry-on restrictions. On a backpacking trip, the narrower build of the Backpacker overall makes it a pretty seamless fit with the rest of my gear, even with a few extra inches of length.
Can this be played in alternate tuning other than e standard?
hello, can you give a compagison with the schredneck practice tool....
wow, the Traveler Acoustic AG-105 all the way!
I have a baby taylor and I think it tops all of those guitars!!
But one of them WAS a baby Taylor....
David Yepes Giron exactly...
Cool, but I just came from another comparison video and something you can take note of is they went, actually played the guitar, edited it to go from one guitar to the other without pause, and did it several times so people could get a handle on how they really sound playing different kinds of songs. Also it would be nice to be able to hear how the different pickups sound.
Jamie Way This is a joke right
“It fits on my lap like a small, but full sized guitar”
Nice comparison. Very well balanced. And no sales pitch. No editorial comments at all. But of course, as we know, teh youtube forum is populated with expert haters.....
I agree kinda like apple/android histeria!
(i like the look of the taylor)
'very well balanced'??? - TWO of them were neck heavy!!
Cort AD mini OP what I got
same
@@ellimac7428 still got it, and it has an amazing sound though
traveler is really convenient and has some cool little functions but when it comes to sound the Martin just sounds so much better.
putting the backpacker between them in the sound test acts as a buffer so you don't notice it so much (anything sounds better than the backpacker lol).
Have another listen by skipping between 2:32 and 2:52.
When it comes down to it, you don't want to spend your money on the wrong guitar because of a gimmick.
Yes the traveler is a bit shorter.......but by how much that will really effect your life?
They are both travel guitars, both very short.
Go for the better sound and enjoy playing.
Traveler don´t have more playable area than baby Taylor, simply they have different scales.
Well...it does have more frets...
Hi, Do you know where I can buy a Backpacker Guitar in Miami?
Rogério Martins Sam-Ash at Dolphin Mall
To me this is not a useful video. It sounds like it's trying to put down the other guitars. Ughhh.
This was good from the standpoint of purely musician perspective, how does it sound, how does it play kind of thing, but doesn't really address anything from the standpoint of.... travel, which I would think is the point of having a piece of gear like this. Personally, I'm a backpacker so I'm just as interested in things like weight, does it break down, if so how does it break down and store when traveling, what does that look like as far as the shape and how compact it is. Sound and all that is important, don't get me wrong, but if that's all I'm worried about then why get a traveler? On the surface, the martin seems like it would travel the best out of the three, mostly because of the more narrow body.
What a nutcase. The fact that they're neck heavy makes them sound better. More mass, more tone.
I highly doubt that. Yes it's often said that bigger necks provide more/better tone, but when the body is this small I don't think that makes any difference.
To the point: I don't see any reason why anyone would get the Martin, unless you're going hiking, you really have no room to carry any larger bodied guitar and are still desperate to bring a guitar with you.
I said heavier necks, not bigger :)
Seemed to me like that was a review with no bias. He was just stating that in was neck heavy.
Guys. I'd like to clear my point :3
I said Heavy necks. Not Large. They are probably heave coz the wood is dense. That makes it more resonant. And, the fact that the body is visibly much lighter means the wood is less dense there. There's a big air column to vibrate and nothing to muffle it. Which makes for a loud sound. Loud+ Good tone. What more could you ask for in an Acoustic? And as for it having less bass, etc. It's a travel guitar I doubt anyone would gig with it :P
Cheers!
Yup... could never buy a guitar from someone with hair like that... il stick with my backpacker
Travel hipster
The traveler is so ugly! It doesn't look complete without a head.
That's what she said
The point of the backpacker isn’t to be a normal “travel” guitar. It’s to carry it up a mountain hooked to your backpack. Martin has travel guitars that would have been better for this comparison.
Yes. The intended use is right in the name. I think it's a little unfair to lump it in with travel guitars, which have all kinds of wiggler room to maximize the sound that the Martin does not.
the backpacker with the tuning pegs on the bottom like the traveler, and shortened, would make it mega small. get on it, guys
I think that these guitars would be too big to be allowed on an Emirates flight as hand baggage.
The Martin back packer is the worst. It feels too odd, sounds bad, and most of all costs way too much for what it is. It's like $360 at the store I was at. It should be like $50 at the very most. Those other guitars are pretty good though
I used to own a Backpacker- you can get them for $200 all day long, or even $150 used. And they play fine once you have them on a strap (which is kinda mandatory, due to the shape). There's also no guitar that's more convenient when traveling. When I deploy overseas and have limited amounts of room, that's what I would choose.
Eric R. Shelton thats what i was thinking. the backpacker might have a weird shape but its so thin, u can take it all over.
LOL beheaded guitar
The taylor sounds better
We appreciate the feedback, we love our friends at Taylor!
I had a Martin backpacker for a very brief period of time... I returned it immediately, such a piece of garbage (NOT a Martin Guitar at all!). Lesson learned; always try before you buy.
¿Why?
i think the baby and backpacker is more awesome the one w/ no head looks weird as frick
Buy a voyage air! Full size without sacrificing tone.
The traveler sounds like a kids toy guitar...and no headstock just lo0ks stupid..LOL...
Yeah, I would take the backpacker, throw it in the truck, wont hurt it to get sat on stepped on, or fall out the door....
Washburn Rover best travel guitar