@@Harlanmote I wonder if that is in part down to the fact that Paul Reed Smith is still alive and the instruments still his name on them. Gibson has their heritage and history to sell guitars - they don't necessarily have to have the same Quality Control because people will still buy their guitars because of the 'history' and want to emulate their heroes. Taking out some of the Quality Control steps and being more 'lenient' over what leaves their factory also means that they can make them cheaper and maximise profitability too. Whilst PRS is alive, I can't see PRS guitars compromising on quality or consistency, I can't see them lacking innovation and experimentation to try and push for the 'perfect' guitar - the one that gives you 6 out when you put 6 in. I can't see Paul settling for 5.9, he will keep pushinh to get 5.91, 5.92, 5.93...
Coincidentally he worked with Ted McCartey, who was responsible for what most people call Gibson's best era of electric guitars. Pretty awesome collab at the time, historical in retrospect.
Other lost that passion in what...three years? How does the third year of the Les Paul and the Stratocaster, and the Telecaster compare, to year one? What about year 30? What about year 70?!?!!?
This is why I love PRS guitars so much. I truly believe there is no other guitar company that loves their guitars as much as PRS does. They’re truly incredible instruments as well as works of art
I just started playing the guitar recently. As an mechanical engineer I appreciate the insight into the guitar design process. As a former combat soldier I really appreciate his support for my brother in arms. I'm thinking my next guitar might just be a PRS.
His insights are just BS covered with sprinkles. In acoustic guitars sound is produced by the resonance of the top of the guitar that excites the air, in electric guitars sound is made by the excitement of the magnetic field which produces electricity than then is converted into mechanical energy by speaker drivers.
@@josearaujo8616 True, but you left out a BIG part... What excites the magnetic field of the pickups is the Strings, and how the strings vibrate. The wood and nut, and bridge, and the wood of the guitar ALL affect how the Strings vibrate... So Paul's statements still stand.
@@Exsomos but in this case the vibration or resonation would be a bad thing since its lost energy from the strings. Very debatable is if the sympathetic resonation can change the original string frequency vibration and therefor the tone. Most important impact is on feel, which alone can justify the option, but resorting to tone, nope.
I just received my PRS and I confirm: WOW. This guitar has a soul, the sound and the possibilities are just incredible. Not only these guitars sound beautifuly but they are magnificent pieces of Art. Thank you Mr. PRS ❤😊
Bill Wilkie .......and your "another one that has no clue". I'm not saying that "every PRS guitar is better than the rest".........but I AM saying that MOST PRS guitars are BETTER THAN THE REST.........all but a very few magic guitars made by the other companies even come close. I've just about seen it all, played it all, done it all on a stage more times than I can count. The truth is the truth, and facts are facts. PRS guitars are simply...........guitar for guitar..........the best damn guitars ever. He does things to every guitar he makes, that even very few custom makers do.
Great talk Paul. I have owned 5 PRS guitars and still have 2 in addition to Gibsons and Fenders. Without a doubt the PRS' are the best built and most playable of the lot. Sound is top notch. I say that because a Tele, a Strat an LP all have unique sounds. If I had to choose only one guitar it would absolutely be a PRS.
I love the passion that this man has towards music and the instruments that he produces. His company is the only company that I think justify their price tags. If I had the money I would buy a PRS.
I think it's funny some of these comments - "PRS guitars have no "character" or lack real tone like a Les Paul or a Strat" Are you serious? What a bullshit statement. Are you actual guitar players? If so, how long have you been playing? I've literally never saw or have known a single guitar player that picked up and played a really nice PRS and felt that it didn't meet their standards simply because it doesn't have legend status like some other instruments (as if that even fucking means anything when it comes to a quality instrument (it doesn't)). I like Strats and I like Les Pauls, and yes we all know the history those two legends have, but it's such an asinine thing to say that PRS guitars aren't relevant because nobody can "hear one and know it's a PRS like you know it's a Les Paul or a Strat." The truth is, Les Pauls look pretty and sound fantastic, but that's pretty much where it ends for me - they're fucking heavy (unnecessarily heavy), and honestly their body shape is just not as comfortable to work with - the reason people still play them is because almost every guitar player they grew up listening to/trying to emulate played one also - not because they're the best guitar ever and nothing compares to it. Because trust me, they're not THAT great. In terms of playability, it's pretty much not even a contest in my mind - I own a Les Paul Standard because it's an iconic guitar - I own a PRS Custom 22 because it plays better than almost any other well known brand I've ever played.
+wayfaerer320 The problem isn't tone or quality. The problem is that a nice PRS costs as much as my car. I'd much rather gig with a fender and still be able to pay rent than buy a PRS and live in a box.
+wayfaerer320 I have a PRS. It's nice, but has issues compared to other guitars I own (one more and one less expensive). The cutaway feels clumsy, the tone isn't quite my thing, etc. Without being overly combative, I can't trust you THAT much on the LP thing! You don't think they're amazing, and that's fine, but a lot of other people say they're the best. I'd need to try a whole bunch through my favourite gear to know for myself, of course, but sometimes famous guitars are famous because they really ARE the best, at least to enough people that it counts. I feel more from my weird battered Ibanez of dubious provenance that I happened to find in a shop than I do from my PRS. And the beauty of it is we can both be right. Or wrong.
Even China made knockoff has characteristic of unique sound. Only whether you like it or not. And the characteristic of a bad Chinese knockoff is probably like "dull, not bright, less sustain, very high string action and if you try to set the strings lower, rattling sound came".
I am surprised at the reaction here. I've met and talked to Paul on a number of occasions and find him very compelling in a nerdy kind of way. His true passion is to build the best guitars on the planet and I think he has got to 5.9 out of 6. I have four of them and they are truly fantastic instruments. He may be a bit aloof but he builds great guitars. Have they had some duds, yes, but they also did not put self tuning gears and crayon logo's on their guitars either.
His point is how HE tries to make the perfect guitar. Notice the title of his talk, "Building the Perfect Guitar." He then gives a talk that basically says, other manufacturers can do what they want, but WE consider and use the very best, most resonant part at every place on every guitar. Then, when the guitar is finished, you get out of that guitar via tone and volume, almost all the energy you put into it when you strummed it. WE build our version of the perfect guitar by incredible attention to detail in every step of construction, i.e. we want you to put in, say 6 Joules of energy and want you to get 5.9 Joules of energy back from the guitar in volume, harmonics, and tone. I met Mr. Smith at a guitar show in Clearwater, Fla., years ago and had the pleasure of talking to him a little while. It was before the company became a monster and he was just standing there alone with his guitars when the place first opened. I had been one of the first through the door. Everyone else seemed content to come in later. But in talking with him one on one, you get the exact same Paul Smith as seen here in this video. Just a great guy with a massive passion for guitars. He also did a show later with his band and I found that he's also a great player. One of the favorite chance encounters in my life was speaking with him.
Resonance is a waste of energy. In an acoustic guitar only the top should resonate, and in an electric guitar nothing should resonate. If you want to use physics, then don't lie to people.
I visited his haunted 20 foot square workshop in 1983 to ask him to work on my vintage 1968 Gibson EB2D bass. I was enthralled with having played his #7 hand made bass he made for Rick Kennell in 1977. Rick would let me play it sometimes during lessons in 1978. Paul started by making incredible instruments and has continued to add scientific experimenting to his artistic craft. I finally bought my first PRS about 6 years ago and instantly all of my other guitars sat idle as I preferred picking up my PRS SE Soapbar II. Since then I have bought 2 more SE's and an American made Custom 22. I even have a cassette of his band in 1983 that he gave me. You can have preferences on your guitars, but nobody can deny that so many professional guitarists are given one of his and they convert over to PRS guitars, buying a whole stable of them. This is how Santana started. Paul handed Santana one around 1979 or so, and Santana became a convert.
The challenge of eletric guitars is simply to make them cheap, and low action, and of course solid. It's the pick-ups (and effects if you use those) that give most of the sound. You can have fun with different materials, hollow bodies, fundamental frequencies. But it's all good if you like the way it colors the sound. Subtract or add. But, you won't hear that sublty at all if you play with distortion.
Far be it from me to a critic of PRS, but he is merging principles of acoustic guitars with electric guitars - they are different beasts. Les Paul knew this when he grabbed a pine 4X4 in the Epiphone factory in 1940 and made an electric guitar body from it. He was not concerned with 'tonewood' because he knew that the pickups and strings give an electric guitar it's sound, not the wood. Wood density will make a difference in sustain, but that's about it. Recently a cardboard Stratocaster was made and played by Fender folks in Corona, and it sounded like a strat because of the hardware, and not the 'toneboard' of the cardboard. RUclips it and check it out - very enlightening. There are plenty of acrylic electric guitars that sound just fine. Leo Fender used pine in his early Broadcaster bodies because it was cheap and plentiful, not for the tone. Leo used maple necks because of the wood's stability and strength, and for quick and easy production with relatively unskilled workers on his assemble line. PRS makes excellent guitars - their quality control is exceptional, and far better than Fender and Gibson, IMO. Of course, that is reflected in their prices also. I like the scale of 25" for a lot of PRS guitars, as it's a nice fit between Fender and Gibson. I'm not trying to dis on PRS and this presentation - I have tremendous admiration for the man and his instruments. However, this video seems a lot like a sales pitch to me.
The more you expose your humanity the more cheap shots jerks are going to hit you with. You don't see most company heads do this kind of thing because they want to avoid getting jaded from this backlash. The comments are mostly hey I'm better than Paul. Like a bunch of narcissistic adolescents that lack respect and culture.
his first guitars were built from the dresser in his studio apartment. he built a company that builds things he cares about. what did you do with your life.
I think people who are inclined to anti-social behavior find an almost ideal environment on the internet. You don't actually have to interact face-to-face. The farther removed from consequences the more anti-social behavior can thrive. PRS mentioned this video's comment section in another video. Obviously, he gets mostly 'likes' but those who 'dislike' are far more likely to post in the comment section. From what I've read it's mostly people who don't really understand what PRS is talking about and/or don't really know what they are talking about themselves.
Gibson put nylon saddles on their early 60's 335 to get a warmer sound. It subtracts away more energy but many people prefer that sound. To transmitting back more energy is not always the best thing.
PRS's terms "Subtractive" / or "unsubstractive" is the same thing as saying that materials either absorb or conserve energy, which is how Ken Parker looks at it.
Regarding the tone quality of an electric guitar, some have correctly stated that a main contributor to the tone quality is the fingers of the player. I'd like to point out that Paul Reed Smith has put a lot of effort into making his guitars comfortable to play, which translates directly to the fingers of the player, and therefore indirectly affects the tone quality of his guitars. Also, for those of you who don't understand his explanation of "subtractive", he is speaking of energy losses due to poor design choices (like using a PVC nut, for example) which would subtract (or absorb) vibration energy from the strings. Great talk, thank you Paul Reed Smith !
No its not, if it was he wouldn't be charging so much for a guitar, would he? He has to justify the fancy finished, wood and other stuff that have absolutely no influence on the tone...
@@josearaujo8616 They also use epoxy instead of wood glue like most guitars because epoxy has a low water content. A lot of people think tone wood is a myth, but try telling that to Beethoven. Even a deaf guy could tell you that’s real.
I've been playing his guitars professionally for over a decade and I can say with confidence...if anyone should be making a presentation of this kind, it should be paul reed smith
Amen, to Paul for his armed services appreciation. it is Memorial day in the USA in 2017 when I am watching this. My father has served 3 tours. 2 in Afghanistan and 1 in Iraq, and I have several close friends going into different branches of the armed forces. No matter how much controversial stuff goes on with the USA military, I will always respect and support the, because I know first hand what, our military, has been through.
Paul's commitment and enthusiasm are a great thing to see. Also, the electric tone at the end is fantastic. The acoustic sounded wonderful as well. I think PRS is trying to improve their instruments, making better ones than before. Most other makers are just trying to do it cheaper.
"I couldn't decide whether to pick up the Strat or the Les Paul for the next tune, so I made a guitar that was a combination of both and called it "my new thing." That includes the scale length, found right in between the other two. Then I just put in better materials." In a nutshell that is the whole PRS philosophy. For all who play corporate guitars including his, you will find out one day that a single luthier build is vastly superior (to a factory stock model) to fit your needs once you find out what they are over time and experience. I'm not kidding about this. Once your needs are defined- Sell your six telecasters and buy a single guitar to your spec and you'll be happy. Meticulous love is the key ingredient. Brian May and his dad weren't even builders and the testimony and legacy of that piece has stood the test of time. -as one example.
Brilliant.. every musician is always telling each other how the "charred maple wood" or the "vibranium neck" makes the sound so rich and adds so much to the tone. I can't believe I never thought of this myself, but his idea of merely subtracting less as opposed to adding is pretty deep. Makes total sense instead of saying some single part of the guitar adds a magical quality to the sound... they're (the parts) all working together in unison to reduce subtraction of energy output. Cool stuff
I bought a "magic" guitar. It happened to be a PRS EG1 electric in a store. Before I even plugged it in I strummed it and was AMAZED at how resonant it was and how much sustain there was. I started playing it and couldn't stop. After about 5 minutes the employee came over and said, "Why don't you plug it in?" Thankfully I've also found a "magic" acoustic guitar as well. You could have 100 of the exact same guitar model and one or two stand out because, as Paul Reed Smith says, they simply subtract less, and probably for reasons beyond the specific control of even a great luthier.
Wow - Everyone is so negative. 1-Obviously you do not own a PRS guitar. If you did you would totally understand the quality he is talking about Yes he understands physics more than you. He fuilly understands material science. 2-Just because he plays the anthem on electric, that means he has to play the song for the same reason as Hendrix? No one can just enjoy something these days w/o forcing their idelogy into it. The guy built a company from nothing but passion and wood from grand ma's dresser. He has a list of players-Santana, Page, Lifeson, and so on use his stuff. That is what the American Dream is all about. Not to whine about everything and the fact that a bunch of voluntiers go out and protect the very freedoms that you enjoy like saying stupid un informed comments. When Motzart was my age, he been dead for like 15 years, now that is how little I have accomplished, so shut up and play your guitar.
+Jimmy Hartke No, he doesn't "fully understand material science", and he probably doesn't understand physics as a whole more than every person watching this video...
+William Poulsen Yes, unfortunately this was just an advertisement pitch for his guitars. The first example with the nuts was already quite questionable (from a physical perspective). Also you don't have to be an ace in physics to make good guitars. Most guitar companies started with a trial and error approach. But if you really want to go heavy into it talk to people who compare valuable instruments to fake ones. They go really deep. I do not question his intelligence or that of his company, but this video as a whole was just advertisement. Still PRS guitars are great (except the first series of PRS SE. those were really bad).
+BananaPlasm This craftsman has fallen in love with hard, stiff materials - to keep the energy of the strings and the players artistic INPUT ALIVE long enough to be heard and felt. Whats that got to do with a physical perspective ? ( irony, my friend, irony.) So he's using metals instead of pvc's, hard ebony instead of rosewood, tuningpegs with shafts that turn in a metal housing - no plastic surfaces involved. - and probably frets of a harder, stiffer variety.... He's staying true to his philosophy . My humblest respect.
Bought a PRS AE60 this year and it is one of the most beautiful acoustic guitars I have played and by far the nicest at that price point. The tone is even and delicious, and shines even brighter than the guitar.
Find it hard to agree with Mr. Smith. To quote Top Gear's James May "Adding more chillies to a curry doesn't make it better". Simply adding more and more tone through using the best resonating parts isn't necessarily the answer. Jack White's Airline is one of the most iconic sounding guitars in the world and is made of fibreglass. Jimmy Page's danelectro which he used to record kashmir is made of cheap plastic parts. Seasick Steve's guitar only has three strings and has tones of tone! Many musicians' favourite guitars are not the ones made of the best parts but are often the ones with the most character.
Actually, the best sounding instruments are the ones played by those who have talent. Character is a fancy word for juju or mojo. Guitars arent magic because they're old. However, tone Is subjective. PRS are amazing sounding guitars and rightly so. Even open strings sound awesome on a small practice amp with no effects. What you're talking about is talent and recording prowess/experience, not just guitar tone in and of Itself.
You've taken away exactly the opposite message the Paul was trying to get across. He didn't advocate designing to add "more and more tone". The whole point was that design should build upon the goal of taking away as little as possible. They're very different ideas.
Thank You PRS For Re' Educating Me About Guitar Tone Factuality' And Also Enlightening The Fact That 'Tone Passion' Is What This Energized Wise Gentelmen 'Is 'Was and 'Always Will Be About! And I Own an 'Always Wanted 'Since The Eighties-'Albeit''Affordable To Me' Asian Version' and It Sounds Most Awesome!🎸🔊🎼
This strikes me as an enormous commercial for PRS guitars rather than an educational way of sharing his wisdom. The whole point of the TED talk is for experts and smart/wise people to share their work and discoveries with people, to help raise them up to the level of the speaker. Paul's famous 21 Rules of Tone would have been a wonderful thing to share and explain here; they would have enriched the experience of guitar-making for all the luthiers and wannabe luthiers watching... as well as making a better commercial, exactly, by revealing just what makes a PRS guitar superior to a standard Strat. But of course, he's holding that information back because these Rules of Tone are supposedly a trade secret. Contrary to the talk title, he doesn't want to help you build a better guitar yourself. He wants to convince you he can build a better guitar, so that you buy his. PRS is undoubtedly a clever guy and a master builder, even if the guitars themselves are factory built now rather than hand luthiered by him. But the point of TED talks is to share your gifts with others. By keeping his best and most specific advice to himself, and only sharing very vague general statements about his philosophy of tone, he's not actually giving us his knowledge in a meaningful or helpful way--which is pretty much the whole point of a good TEDtalk.
What he doesn't want you to know is that every manufacturer of every musical instrument since centuries before the first Rickenbacker electric guitars has always known everything in his 21 rules of tone (nothing but a sales slogan), and a great deal more. He doesn't spell them out because they're all bloody obvious. Resonant materials and solid joints make for rich harmonics, and it's the harmonics, not the energy return per se, that give the instrument its richness. That's why PRS instruments handle well but sound so incredibly generic. IMO, he should stick to making necks. I thought his cheap bolt-on neck guitars from the 90s were the only PRS instruments with any tonal character.
The design is closer to Gibson Les Paul. Dual humbucker pickups, solid body, angled neck, 3+3 tuners. The first ones were too close to the Les Paul, and Gibson sued for copyright infringement. So PRS converted it to a doublecut design and went on from there. I'm a Les Paul fan, but I recognize that the PRS guitars share a lot of qualities. Primarily rich, deep and wide tone with sustain for days. It's inherent in the mahogany body and neck. The rest is artistry in making it look great without taking away too much of the sound.
@@Xalor69 Of course Paul started off by looking at both Strats and LP's and was also a 'repairer' of these guitars. Its no secret that Pauls experience of fixing guitars led him to take the 'best' of both of those guitars and combined them into 1 guitar. The Scale length too is in between both a LP and Strat. However, since those early days, he has continued to experiment, continued to look at everything and continued to improve the instruments. Whether that is changing the Tuners, the Bridge, the Nut, the frets etc. The reason PRS haven't jumped on board with current trend with the Stainless Steel fret wire, is because he doesn't like the way it sounds and as for 'fret wear', PRS use a very hard Nickel alloy that is harder than ANYONE else uses. I also find it funny that Gibson will say their Maple flame tops are AAAAA yet still not as 'flamey' as a non-10top PRS. To me that also shows who gets the 'best' Maple. PRS are also extremely particular about how they 'cure' wood, how its dried, its moisture content etc.
I like his point about instruments taking on the persona of those that play them. I made my own electric guitar and did so out of my dream materials. It's close to one of the typical shapes for a guitar but has just enough difference that you'll never find one like it on a store shelf. This guitar has had me poured into it when I was at my best, at my worst and just bored trying to have some fun. The crazy thing is when I hand the thing to other people. I find as they play it, their style begins to take on elements of my style even if they haven't ever heard me play. It's a very eerie feeling, almost like they are channeling me. This was particularly eerie meeting my fiance's honorary niece's boyfriend play on my guitar. I never met the dude before then, barely got to know him before they left us alone and I busted out the guitar as a common point seeing his interest in it was one of a musician. Yet he was mimicking my style. I hadn't so much as held the guitar for more than the time it took to pass it to him and show him that the volume knobs are kinda scratchy. Instead of using the tricks I showed him to get rid of the scratchiness he simply did like I do, embrace it as part of the sound. I could tell however from what he played that his style was so much different from mine normally but he was playing in my personal style.
Guitar tone is purely subjective. I don't care a single ioda about cost or material. I only care about how it feels and if the sound is good to my ears. My favorite guitar right now is an Ibanez Mikro 5-string bass and it sounds soooo good and feels so good to play, i'd never change anything about it. I got it for like $100. I've played $5000 basses before that I hated. All players know this and most have experienced it.
My impression was that Ted Talks had a higher rhetorical standard. PRS is a genius and his guitars renowned to be sure--but it's not often clear what this man is talking about. He seems unable to understand what his listener wants to know in order to read him clearly. The concepts are there, but he seems unable to put them into words.
I agree with you. He seeks to impart his thoughts but, great as they are, they don't come across clearly and smoothly as they might. But he still makes great guitars.
He knows exactly what he’s saying. It’s just that nobody else does. I’m pretty sure this only really makes sense to electric guitarists which are a small percentage of the viewing audience
PRS guitars are not overpriced. They are magnificent. A US built PRS is a guitar that will last your entire life, and get passed down through generations. For someone whos passion lives with guitars, it is a non issue to pay a premium for a premium build that will become a life long friend. People throw money into fleeting ventures all the time and don't think twice about it.
Kanami Tono from Band Maid plays PRS and after seeing them live, she makes it wail through her Mesa Boogie Triple Rectifier with 4 X 12” drivers. Totally amazing ! Paul has such passion, Love it !
When you play a perfect guitar in your own opinion, which could differ to somebody else, it's not going to sound great unless you make love to it. You need to feel it and be into it in the moment.
I’ve been playing Guitar 30+years, bought my first PRS 2 weeks ago and realised I used to make Noise(pleasant tho it was) excuse the cliche but it’s true, I’m now making Music… I’m truly flabbergasted The blokes telling and selling The Truth, and long may it continue.
A lot of people commenting that have obviously never played a PRS. Yes, his talk wasn't the greatest, but the guitars that his company makes really are amazing. Ive played a few PRS's, from a $700 SE EG up to a $9000 private stock, and even the SE felt very solid and played great.
Guess one have to accept it as it is - a good luthier just does his work well without trying to look 'scientific', and that results in good guitars. Just like a good plumber doesn't need to have a master's degree in hydrodynamics, vortices in liquids, etc., and have a dozen studies published. There are luthiers who try to speculate regarding scientific stuff and produce awful instruments. Others just do what they do best and get a great result. There's just very little or no connection.
+fix6661 Are you insane?! There is a huge connection!!! Do you happen to know a luthier that could credit what you say? I believe it would be more accurate to say luthery is an artwork; it has its technical sides, but in the end you can't teach someone what art is or how to create it. It is a matter of subjection one must learn on their own under the guidance of others. A purely scientific approach to luthery is not a work of art and will lack it's own proper/unique expression. Please don't stoop luthery as a profession to the same level as plumbing, that is really demeaning.
What a nonsense. What do you have against plumbers? Why you say that comparing somebody to plumber is 'demeaning'? Don't you find it extremely rude and offensive? Do you want to say there are 'good' and 'bad' professions? Those working with wood are doing an artwork, and those working with piping are somehow inferior - is that what you're trying to say?
+fix6661 Not all woodwork can be considered a work of art. Plumbing quite simply doesn't count as art in any context except dadaism. Woodwork can be for aesthetics, plumbing is entirely utilitarian. Construe it how you wish, you know what I meant. I'm not commenting after this point.
First, you talk about an 'art', whereas P.R.S. talks about science and physics. Don't you find a contradiction here? I'm not saying you cannot treat making an instrument like an art, if you will. But I'm saying, don't try to overcomplicate something with your unnecessary 'scientific' theories. Second, I happen to know a brilliant luthier who makes very nice instruments. Here's what he says: "One can discuss enlessly wood resonance, but in the end it's all just discussions, as luthier will make an instrument from tonewoods he has at his disposal. Most of my customers discuss each and every detail of an instument, except 'resonances'. Sometime age of tonewood could be discussed, but in many cases luthier doesn't know it, and can only judge the materials based on personal estimations. I think customers know that taking certain tonewoods of a certain quality results in a certain result which is within certain tolerance. And there is no need for empty talking which doesn't lead anywhere." Please, do not comment after this point.
i didn't know he played. the electric guitar part was great. little bit more gain than i'd use, but gotta hand it to him, he made that thing sing like a violin.
***** the point with leo was that he designed guitars and amplifiers for a living, surrounding himself with guitars, and didn't play. why would i automatically think the owner of a company actually plays? i'm not even sure why you care, i was just trying to compliment the guy.
I don't own a PRS, but I know musicians that do. They are upper-end stock models. The quality is good, but overpriced (IMO). These guitars all sound really good. They don't have an iconic sound, as some have mentioned, but they have a very good and malleable sound. I own Carvin guitars which, like a PRS, don't have an iconic sound. They are high-quality, high-value, and malleable. The 'iconic' guitars people have mentioned, were the first-comers. They broke new ground in a big space of sound. But after enough iconic guitars filled that space, there wasn't room left in that space for something far enough away from other guitars to be 'iconic'. That said, I think there's great value in having a guitar that can cover a decent chunk of the sound space, even if it can't claim it as it's own. And, it's got to feel good to play, and make you happy. A happy player is a better player.
i traded in my carvin for prs. not to knock carvin, because they really are good quality instruments. the biggest difference I noticed was how the neck felt, and the tone on the prs was nicer imho, more open/resonant. every instrument's going to be different though, so perhaps I got lucky with this one. to each their own
Paul is incredible as a guitar maker, who took production onto a whole new level. But I don't agree to all his opinions. First, if you play a guitar in an ensemble with other instruments (AKA rock band), the guitar doesn't have to sound like an orchestra. The band sounds better, if everyone has his range of frequencies. I played PRS guitars for years and I found out more often than not, that thin sounding guitars like a Telly fit better into complex scenarios like a 10-piece band with brass section. Conclusion: the tool has to fit into the scenario. Second, PRS states that the ultimate goal is to trigger the right feelings in the musician and the audience. Now, that has nothing to do with physics. But very much with socialization and chemical state of the brain.
You are right about instruments having different roles in an orchestral environment. But a manufacturer looks for the best sound from their instrument. PRS surely has models fitting different applications. Solo players prefer more wholesome sounds while those in a band would like the ones you mentioned. Also, while chemistry and biology explain the phenomena of good feelings, you can only achieve those by making the best instrument, through physics.
I love paul reed smith and what he does, I want to make that clear. however I don't fully agree with his 'theory'. it's not really a theory in my opinion. it's a very personal point of view that is in fact the way he does things. he is perfectionist. It's not a matter of subtracting or adding. it's a matter of mastering the art of an instrument. and there is no ceiling, because all guitars are and sound different and that's how it should be. if he believes what he claims, then it means he thinks he has the wolrd's best 'least subtractive' guitars out there. which just isn't true. nobody can claim any guitar manufacturer is better than the other (if we're talking about high quality instruments obviously). I think PRS has his vision on what a guitar should feel, look, and sound like. and that's amazing, it's great. but I just don't think there is a specific ceiling to a guitar. it's a very personal view that different people differ by. I don't agree, but he is still definitely a great thing to have in the guitar world. I am very proud of what he's been able to do with his great guitars.
Adrian Massi ... And what if someone likes a Tusq nut instead of a bone nut? is he buying an inferior instrument? is his instrument now 5.0/6.0 instead of 5.9? no, it isn't. and his whole presentation makes this claim. it really doesn't matter how much energy is lost in the guitar, as long as for YOU it's a 6.0/6.0.
His theory of the BEST guitar is the sort of instrument that gives most of the feedback from the energy that the artist has put in. His point of view derives from his occupation, a guitar maker. Different manufacturers have different opinions and terms regarding what the best means when it comes to guitar. Ergo, I don't suppose he or TED are forcing people to accept what they think is best. Rather, it's just a refreshing reminder and an insight. Some people might say "My guitar is the best one because I like it!" but as a professional manufacturer, he mustn't say that. LOL
"... not really a theory... it's a very personal point of view". is that not what a theory is? someone's idea that they go out to attempt to prove? I don't know why this bugged me so much.
I loved this man's talk, he made me think about guitar manufacturing differently. Reading the comments, I can't believe so many people do not understand him. What he is staying is basically this: What makes one instrument sound better than another is how little the materials take away from the sound. A very well crafted guitar will be crafted so subtly that you will hear so much of the tone and sound of the insttument, while a cheap one will be made with woods and materials that drown out the sound of the guitar, acting as "mufflers". 6 in and 5.9 out means very little of that sound is lost to the "mufflers". Obviously 6 in and 6 out is pretty unrealistic, 6 in and 5.9 out is about as good as possible.
This is what gets me... Just because you put 6.0 in and get 5.9 out doesn't necessarily make the guitar sound BETTER. Only LOUDER. In fact, there may be certain frequencies you want to attenuate, like some very high frequencies that can make the acoustic guitar sound shrill and ear-piercing, for example. Would you rather have a guitar that was at 5.2 that sounded sweet and rounded in the trebles, or a guitar that was 5.9 and shrill? Paul also takes a back-handed stab at the builders who believe that the back is an active part of the sound production. As an aspiring builder who also believes this, I feel there is room for both views - the back as a "reflector" of sound, and the back as a "disperser" of sound. Maybe it's not perceived by the casual listener, but the feeling and sound is real to the player - which is what inspires one to play an instrument in the first place. Besides, if an active back plays no role in the sound of an acoustic guitar, as Paul has continuously claimed, then why bother making them out of different exotic woods, other than to fleece his customers? A maple back would sound the same as Brazilian rosewood if you braced the maple enough, right Paul? Paul also constantly refers to the Torres he auditioned and x-rayed. He talks about how loud it is, how it projects... Guess what? Most smaller guitars tend to project more, and seem louder, than their larger counterparts. NOT necessarily because of the heavier bracing in the back (which was probably done because it was a 4-piece maple back). He has also stated in other videos that his fan braces behind the bridge were inspired by this guitar. But it is not a new idea - many builders had done that years before PRS started making acoustics. Fan braces in the Spanish guitar help emphasize the treble strings, which is part of the challenge of the Spanish guitar builder. It's the opposite with the steel-string. There is an abundance of treble by the nature of the strings, and attenuating those unwanted frequencies while and emphasizing the bass strings more is the challenge.
I'll save you all 20 minutes of your day: "Acoustic instruments are the sonic ideal. As soon as you electrify them you take away from that ideal. At PRS we design electric guitsrs that take as little away from the ideal as possible. The end." Thst said I still find PRS guitars to be beautiful, but sterile and hugely overpriced.
Blech319 They're not all over priced, the handmade CUSTOM AND limited run (also private stock) are priced high due to quality and amount while CE and SE, are more affordable because they're mass produced but still quality made.
I agree, the SE model are a fantastic value, I have a couple. My experience with them led me to go all out and get a couple Core models, and now I am really spoiled. I believe Paul is really focused on what makes a guitar perform correctly, and works to perfect it. The guitar just kind of disappears and gets out of the way when playing it, enabling a direct "Sound in my head" to "Sound from the Guitar" connection if that make sense.
Okay, I remember back in the 90's a lot of stores and dealers were hard selling PRS guitars. These guys were pushy, and no matter what you wanted, they'd say "Oh no, you want a Paul Reed Smith". Going to guitar and gear shows they were EVERYWHERE. Other than stores wanting to make a sale, what was going on back then? One of the stories I heard was that the factory had over produced them, and were dumping the excess inventory, and stores were stuck with far more than they could sell.
The factory produces guitars and the guitar stores buy them. So if these stores were pushing them it was because the STORE over bought them. You cannot buy PRSs directly from the factory. That’s not how it works. They are just unbelievable instruments and I’m sure the salespeople were just excited to sell them.
Tone is subjective. Play a guitar that sounds good to you. I've played $100 guitars made of the cheapest materials that sounded way better than some $3,000 guitars made of the finest materials available.
That may be so for some electric guitars but not for acoustic, and besides it is how plays, and how stable it is over time which is what you pay for. He explains that a good instrument subtracts less, so you can play it very softly and get a great resonating sound. A cheap guitar will have to be played and amped hard - which is fine if that is what you want to do with it - agreed it is subjective but I disagree with the implication that the price tag is purely related to the tonal qualities. Ta.
You're arguing in bad faith. Just because there's a guitar for $100 that sounds better than a $3000 one does not mean that your claim is the norm. Be honest - the norm is that better materials = better sound most of the time. We aren't chasing a unicorn here.
G-damn the sustain on that PRS guitar!!!! Better than my 2008 Gibson LP Studio that's for sure. But it has still given me many many of hours of great joy so I'm grateful and not jealous of people who have a PRS guitar.....well maybe a little jealous. Lol
Its really funny that Paul says that great instruments aren't very subtractive but electric guitar pickups by their very design are inductively subtractive. Especially humbuckers. I am not saying he is completely wrong but timbre is a extremely complex subject and some frequencies do need to be subtracted while others need to remain.PRS guitars are fine instruments and do generally have their own sound and appeal these days.
+Paul Graham (Guitar) First off, we can stop using this bullshit rehash of the word "attenuation". Second, he was talking about acoustic attenuation the whole time which is not the same as inductive attenuation. Third. acoustic attenuation is far less frequency selective than inductive attenuation.
***** Acoustic attenuation with an electric guitar? Interesting concept since you don't hear the acoustics of an electric guitar through an amp. Attenuation means generally any reduction in signal strength. So how do you mean bullshit rehash? The only bullshit is in your comment.
What you hear when you plug in a guitar to an amp and strum is the mechanical (acoustic) energy of the strings (which are acoustically coupled to the body by physical contact) being converted into electrical energy by means of induction. Do you not realize that or are you willfully ignorant. Also, tell me where you've ever read the term "non-subtractive" anywhere in a technical paper about acoustic dampening. Go ahead. I'll wait.
***** Oh no. Someone who believes in electric guitar tonewoods. My condolences. Also tell me where you you've seen "non subtractive" anywhere in my posts?
I never said I believe in "tonewood". Just because someone understands the concept of mechanical waves propagating through wood and reflecting at boundaries doesn't mean they think that a basswood guitar is significant acoustically different from a swamp ash guitar. You may think it's edgy or whatever to be a dissenter of the tonewood school of thought but you don't have to just throw physics out the window entirely. There's no magical boundary condition at the nut and bridge that confine all the strings kinetic energy. Those mechanical waves propagating through the wood and reflecting back causing minor interference. I never said you said "non-subtractive" but you seemed to think I was wrong when I said that it was a bullshit term so you must have though it was valid. Attenuation isn't strictly used in the context of electrical signals. It can apply to mechanics and photonics as well. You don't like "attenuation", fine. Say "dampening" instead. "Subtractive" makes no sense. I don't even think that's a real word. It's a tern used in like imaging and that's it. It sounded like either PRS had a rudimentary understanding of what he was talking about or he was just dumbing it down for the audience. I'm going with the latter because a lot of the talk seemed dumbed down.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I think the difference with Paul is that after thirty years building guitars, he is still incredibly passionate about building guitars.
to bad Gibson isn't.
@@Harlanmote I wonder if that is in part down to the fact that Paul Reed Smith is still alive and the instruments still his name on them.
Gibson has their heritage and history to sell guitars - they don't necessarily have to have the same Quality Control because people will still buy their guitars because of the 'history' and want to emulate their heroes. Taking out some of the Quality Control steps and being more 'lenient' over what leaves their factory also means that they can make them cheaper and maximise profitability too. Whilst PRS is alive, I can't see PRS guitars compromising on quality or consistency, I can't see them lacking innovation and experimentation to try and push for the 'perfect' guitar - the one that gives you 6 out when you put 6 in. I can't see Paul settling for 5.9, he will keep pushinh to get 5.91, 5.92, 5.93...
@@Harlanmote the difference being we can visibly see Mr Smith getting excited about guitars. Good luck getting anything out of Orville Gibson.
Coincidentally he worked with Ted McCartey, who was responsible for what most people call Gibson's best era of electric guitars.
Pretty awesome collab at the time, historical in retrospect.
Other lost that passion in what...three years? How does the third year of the Les Paul and the Stratocaster, and the Telecaster compare, to year one? What about year 30? What about year 70?!?!!?
This is why I love PRS guitars so much. I truly believe there is no other guitar company that loves their guitars as much as PRS does. They’re truly incredible instruments as well as works of art
I just started playing the guitar recently. As an mechanical engineer I appreciate the insight into the guitar design process. As a former combat soldier I really appreciate his support for my brother in arms. I'm thinking my next guitar might just be a PRS.
His insights are just BS covered with sprinkles. In acoustic guitars sound is produced by the resonance of the top of the guitar that excites the air, in electric guitars sound is made by the excitement of the magnetic field which produces electricity than then is converted into mechanical energy by speaker drivers.
PRS makes great guitars man. I just got a SE Paul's guitar and it's a beaut.
@@josearaujo8616 True, but you left out a BIG part... What excites the magnetic field of the pickups is the Strings, and how the strings vibrate. The wood and nut, and bridge, and the wood of the guitar ALL affect how the Strings vibrate... So Paul's statements still stand.
@@Exsomos but in this case the vibration or resonation would be a bad thing since its lost energy from the strings. Very debatable is if the sympathetic resonation can change the original string frequency vibration and therefor the tone.
Most important impact is on feel, which alone can justify the option, but resorting to tone, nope.
Even their overseas built SE guitars are better and have more quality control than an American made fender.
For everyone that keeps saying he doesn’t know what he’s talking about...he owns and created a multi million dollar company so obviously he does.
I just received my PRS and I confirm: WOW. This guitar has a soul, the sound and the possibilities are just incredible. Not only these guitars sound beautifuly but they are magnificent pieces of Art. Thank you Mr. PRS ❤😊
Always a pleasure encountering excellence.
hes passionate about guitars and music, and its no coincidence that he produces some of the finest guitars out there
Mr. Paul Reed Smith you are an absolute genius.
Paul Reed Smith is the Steve Jobs of guitar manufacturers in my opinion. The mans a genius
Bill Wilkie .......and your "another one that has no clue". I'm not saying that "every PRS guitar is better than the rest".........but I AM saying that MOST PRS guitars are BETTER THAN THE REST.........all but a very few magic guitars made by the other companies even come close. I've just about seen it all, played it all, done it all on a stage more times than I can count. The truth is the truth, and facts are facts. PRS guitars are simply...........guitar for guitar..........the best damn guitars ever. He does things to every guitar he makes, that even very few custom makers do.
Just the beauty lures me to his guitars
Les Paul might have been
The Steve Jobs. ???
But steve jobs didnt do anything other than having money.
More like if Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were one person.
Great talk Paul. I have owned 5 PRS guitars and still have 2 in addition to Gibsons and Fenders. Without a doubt the PRS' are the best built and most playable of the lot. Sound is top notch. I say that because a Tele, a Strat an LP all have unique sounds. If I had to choose only one guitar it would absolutely be a PRS.
I love the passion that this man has towards music and the instruments that he produces. His company is the only company that I think justify their price tags. If I had the money I would buy a PRS.
I'm not very patriotic but that anthem sent chills down my arms. The guitar is such a beautiful instrument
I think it's funny some of these comments - "PRS guitars have no "character" or lack real tone like a Les Paul or a Strat"
Are you serious? What a bullshit statement. Are you actual guitar players? If so, how long have you been playing? I've literally never saw or have known a single guitar player that picked up and played a really nice PRS and felt that it didn't meet their standards simply because it doesn't have legend status like some other instruments (as if that even fucking means anything when it comes to a quality instrument (it doesn't)).
I like Strats and I like Les Pauls, and yes we all know the history those two legends have, but it's such an asinine thing to say that PRS guitars aren't relevant because nobody can "hear one and know it's a PRS like you know it's a Les Paul or a Strat."
The truth is, Les Pauls look pretty and sound fantastic, but that's pretty much where it ends for me - they're fucking heavy (unnecessarily heavy), and honestly their body shape is just not as comfortable to work with - the reason people still play them is because almost every guitar player they grew up listening to/trying to emulate played one also - not because they're the best guitar ever and nothing compares to it. Because trust me, they're not THAT great.
In terms of playability, it's pretty much not even a contest in my mind - I own a Les Paul Standard because it's an iconic guitar - I own a PRS Custom 22 because it plays better than almost any other well known brand I've ever played.
+wayfaerer320 Agreed! I'll take that acoustic any day of the week. Now accepting all gifts
+wayfaerer320 The problem isn't tone or quality. The problem is that a nice PRS costs as much as my car. I'd much rather gig with a fender and still be able to pay rent than buy a PRS and live in a box.
+wayfaerer320 I have a PRS. It's nice, but has issues compared to other guitars I own (one more and one less expensive). The cutaway feels clumsy, the tone isn't quite my thing, etc.
Without being overly combative, I can't trust you THAT much on the LP thing! You don't think they're amazing, and that's fine, but a lot of other people say they're the best. I'd need to try a whole bunch through my favourite gear to know for myself, of course, but sometimes famous guitars are famous because they really ARE the best, at least to enough people that it counts. I feel more from my weird battered Ibanez of dubious provenance that I happened to find in a shop than I do from my PRS.
And the beauty of it is we can both be right. Or wrong.
+wayfaerer320 I have a prs se 245 modded with push pull pots. LOVE IT. Next dream guitar... PRS SE angelus A10E
Even China made knockoff has characteristic of unique sound. Only whether you like it or not. And the characteristic of a bad Chinese knockoff is probably like "dull, not bright, less sustain, very high string action and if you try to set the strings lower, rattling sound came".
Thank you Paul Reed Smith for your great contributions and Ted Talks ..!!
I am surprised at the reaction here. I've met and talked to Paul on a number of occasions and find him very compelling in a nerdy kind of way. His true passion is to build the best guitars on the planet and I think he has got to 5.9 out of 6. I have four of them and they are truly fantastic instruments. He may be a bit aloof but he builds great guitars. Have they had some duds, yes, but they also did not put self tuning gears and crayon logo's on their guitars either.
Total respect for this man sharing his great experience, personal success along with his struggles.Most people in his position wouldn't take the time.
His point is how HE tries to make the perfect guitar. Notice the title of his talk, "Building the Perfect Guitar." He then gives a talk that basically says, other manufacturers can do what they want, but WE consider and use the very best, most resonant part at every place on every guitar. Then, when the guitar is finished, you get out of that guitar via tone and volume, almost all the energy you put into it when you strummed it. WE build our version of the perfect guitar by incredible attention to detail in every step of construction, i.e. we want you to put in, say 6 Joules of energy and want you to get 5.9 Joules of energy back from the guitar in volume, harmonics, and tone.
I met Mr. Smith at a guitar show in Clearwater, Fla., years ago and had the pleasure of talking to him a little while. It was before the company became a monster and he was just standing there alone with his guitars when the place first opened. I had been one of the first through the door. Everyone else seemed content to come in later. But in talking with him one on one, you get the exact same Paul Smith as seen here in this video. Just a great guy with a massive passion for guitars. He also did a show later with his band and I found that he's also a great player. One of the favorite chance encounters in my life was speaking with him.
Resonance is a waste of energy. In an acoustic guitar only the top should resonate, and in an electric guitar nothing should resonate. If you want to use physics, then don't lie to people.
@@josearaujo8616 it’s an analogy
@@F87_Frank You don't say you work in a Newtonian context, quote Isaac, and then weasel out of it by saying you were only making an analogy.
@@josearaujo8616 I agree 100%.
Incredible!!!
I visited his haunted 20 foot square workshop in 1983 to ask him to work on my vintage 1968 Gibson EB2D bass. I was enthralled with having played his #7 hand made bass he made for Rick Kennell in 1977. Rick would let me play it sometimes during lessons in 1978. Paul started by making incredible instruments and has continued to add scientific experimenting to his artistic craft. I finally bought my first PRS about 6 years ago and instantly all of my other guitars sat idle as I preferred picking up my PRS SE Soapbar II. Since then I have bought 2 more SE's and an American made Custom 22. I even have a cassette of his band in 1983 that he gave me. You can have preferences on your guitars, but nobody can deny that so many professional guitarists are given one of his and they convert over to PRS guitars, buying a whole stable of them. This is how Santana started. Paul handed Santana one around 1979 or so, and Santana became a convert.
leesystems Bugs was an early convert too! God I miss him & his tone.
Haunted workshop?! Sounds interesting…….maybe it’s Leo Fender trying to get even
The challenge of eletric guitars is simply to make them cheap, and low action, and of course solid. It's the pick-ups (and effects if you use those) that give most of the sound.
You can have fun with different materials, hollow bodies, fundamental frequencies. But it's all good if you like the way it colors the sound. Subtract or add. But, you won't hear that sublty at all if you play with distortion.
Far be it from me to a critic of PRS, but he is merging principles of acoustic guitars with electric guitars - they are different beasts. Les Paul knew this when he grabbed a pine 4X4 in the Epiphone factory in 1940 and made an electric guitar body from it. He was not concerned with 'tonewood' because he knew that the pickups and strings give an electric guitar it's sound, not the wood. Wood density will make a difference in sustain, but that's about it. Recently a cardboard Stratocaster was made and played by Fender folks in Corona, and it sounded like a strat because of the hardware, and not the 'toneboard' of the cardboard. RUclips it and check it out - very enlightening.
There are plenty of acrylic electric guitars that sound just fine. Leo Fender used pine in his early Broadcaster bodies because it was cheap and plentiful, not for the tone. Leo used maple necks because of the wood's stability and strength, and for quick and easy production with relatively unskilled workers on his assemble line.
PRS makes excellent guitars - their quality control is exceptional, and far better than Fender and Gibson, IMO. Of course, that is reflected in their prices also. I like the scale of 25" for a lot of PRS guitars, as it's a nice fit between Fender and Gibson.
I'm not trying to dis on PRS and this presentation - I have tremendous admiration for the man and his instruments. However, this video seems a lot like a sales pitch to me.
I don't understand all the negative comments about his delivery... PRS was just being himself.
Strongly disagree. He's a self-described atheist
squiggy klane how is that relevant? you're hating on him because he doesn't believe in your god?
Tony Trupp I believe in God... but I have to agree with you here! What's atheism have to do with the price of eggs?
@@squiggyklane3711 most sane people are... but how is that telling anything about his delivery?
@@squiggyklane3711 Some atheists understand things that other atheists don't.
The more you expose your humanity the more cheap shots jerks are going to hit you with. You don't see most company heads do this kind of thing because they want to avoid getting jaded from this backlash. The comments are mostly hey I'm better than Paul. Like a bunch of narcissistic adolescents that lack respect and culture.
his first guitars were built from the dresser in his studio apartment. he built a company that builds things he cares about. what did you do with your life.
I think people who are inclined to anti-social behavior find an almost ideal environment on the internet. You don't actually have to interact face-to-face. The farther removed from consequences the more anti-social behavior can thrive. PRS mentioned this video's comment section in another video. Obviously, he gets mostly 'likes' but those who 'dislike' are far more likely to post in the comment section. From what I've read it's mostly people who don't really understand what PRS is talking about and/or don't really know what they are talking about themselves.
@robyn Rotolo Amazing comment.
Taterly Saladman sound to me like he's the narcissist.
True
Gibson put nylon saddles on their early 60's 335 to get a warmer sound. It subtracts away more energy but many people prefer that sound. To transmitting back more energy is not always the best thing.
The Captain has this shirt.
omg youre right!
But, does the Captain have a PRS guitar? He always talks about his Les Paul and Strat, but I've never heard him mention a PRS.
lol
atleast chappers have
he have 1 now. Paul recently gave Captain a PRS during the NAMM Show. Go watch the Andertons youtube channel for the PRS during NAMM show 2017
Wonderful. I'm getting my first PRS guitar for Christmas and words can't describe my excitement.
How can you not want a guitar from someone who takes the building process this seriously
im a Vet and now, Im an even prouder owner of a PRS, cheers Mr Smith, ty for the shout out!
PRS's terms "Subtractive" / or "unsubstractive" is the same thing as saying that materials either absorb or conserve energy, which is how Ken Parker looks at it.
Or transfer the energy
Regarding the tone quality of an electric guitar, some have correctly stated that a main contributor to the tone quality is the fingers of the player. I'd like to point out that Paul Reed Smith has put a lot of effort into making his guitars comfortable to play, which translates directly to the fingers of the player, and therefore indirectly affects the tone quality of his guitars. Also, for those of you who don't understand his explanation of "subtractive", he is speaking of energy losses due to poor design choices (like using a PVC nut, for example) which would subtract (or absorb) vibration energy from the strings. Great talk, thank you Paul Reed Smith !
His point is by applying physics to create instruments that can continue to resonate sound which makes them superior.
:)
No its not, if it was he wouldn't be charging so much for a guitar, would he? He has to justify the fancy finished, wood and other stuff that have absolutely no influence on the tone...
@@josearaujo8616 They also use epoxy instead of wood glue like most guitars because epoxy has a low water content. A lot of people think tone wood is a myth, but try telling that to Beethoven. Even a deaf guy could tell you that’s real.
How awesome. Thank you so much!
I've been playing his guitars professionally for over a decade and I can say with confidence...if anyone should be making a presentation of this kind, it should be paul reed smith
Amen, to Paul for his armed services appreciation. it is Memorial day in the USA in 2017 when I am watching this. My father has served 3 tours. 2 in Afghanistan and 1 in Iraq, and I have several close friends going into different branches of the armed forces. No matter how much controversial stuff goes on with the USA military, I will always respect and support the, because I know first hand what, our military, has been through.
Paul's commitment and enthusiasm are a great thing to see. Also, the electric tone at the end is fantastic. The acoustic sounded wonderful as well. I think PRS is trying to improve their instruments, making better ones than before. Most other makers are just trying to do it cheaper.
I love this guy.A passionate innovator creator
"I couldn't decide whether to pick up the Strat or the Les Paul for the next tune, so I made a guitar that was a combination of both and called it "my new thing." That includes the scale length, found right in between the other two. Then I just put in better materials."
In a nutshell that is the whole PRS philosophy.
For all who play corporate guitars including his, you will find out one day that a single luthier build is vastly superior (to a factory stock model) to fit your needs once you find out what they are over time and experience.
I'm not kidding about this. Once your needs are defined- Sell your six telecasters and buy a single guitar to your spec and you'll be happy.
Meticulous love is the key ingredient. Brian May and his dad weren't even builders and the testimony and legacy of that piece has stood the test of time. -as one example.
I have never had an instrument inspire me to play as much as both my PRS guitars. A 93 CU24 10 Top and 2016 CE24. Thank you Paul.
Brilliant.. every musician is always telling each other how the "charred maple wood" or the "vibranium neck" makes the sound so rich and adds so much to the tone.
I can't believe I never thought of this myself, but his idea of merely subtracting less as opposed to adding is pretty deep. Makes total sense instead of saying some single part of the guitar adds a magical quality to the sound... they're (the parts) all working together in unison to reduce subtraction of energy output.
Cool stuff
I bought a "magic" guitar. It happened to be a PRS EG1 electric in a store. Before I even plugged it in I strummed it and was AMAZED at how resonant it was and how much sustain there was. I started playing it and couldn't stop. After about 5 minutes the employee came over and said, "Why don't you plug it in?" Thankfully I've also found a "magic" acoustic guitar as well. You could have 100 of the exact same guitar model and one or two stand out because, as Paul Reed Smith says, they simply subtract less, and probably for reasons beyond the specific control of even a great luthier.
I had the chance to play as an opening act for "The Paul Reed Smith Band" in Thomann Sommerfest few years ago and meet him. He is an awesome guy!
glad he's still kicking and with so much passion :)
Wow - Everyone is so negative. 1-Obviously you do not own a PRS guitar. If you did you would totally understand the quality he is talking about Yes he understands physics more than you. He fuilly understands material science. 2-Just because he plays the anthem on electric, that means he has to play the song for the same reason as Hendrix? No one can just enjoy something these days w/o forcing their idelogy into it.
The guy built a company from nothing but passion and wood from grand ma's dresser. He has a list of players-Santana, Page, Lifeson, and so on use his stuff. That is what the American Dream is all about. Not to whine about everything and the fact that a bunch of voluntiers go out and protect the very freedoms that you enjoy like saying stupid un informed comments.
When Motzart was my age, he been dead for like 15 years, now that is how little I have accomplished, so shut up and play your guitar.
+Jimmy Hartke No, he doesn't "fully understand material science", and he probably doesn't understand physics as a whole more than every person watching this video...
+Oli T The proof is in the SOUND of his instruments / / Do you think what he's telling the audience is just snakeoil to sell more gadgets ?
+William Poulsen Yes, unfortunately this was just an advertisement pitch for his guitars. The first example with the nuts was already quite questionable (from a physical perspective).
Also you don't have to be an ace in physics to make good guitars. Most guitar companies started with a trial and error approach. But if you really want to go heavy into it talk to people who compare valuable instruments to fake ones. They go really deep.
I do not question his intelligence or that of his company, but this video as a whole was just advertisement. Still PRS guitars are great (except the first series of PRS SE. those were really bad).
+BananaPlasm This craftsman has fallen in love with hard, stiff materials - to keep the energy of the strings and the players artistic INPUT ALIVE long enough to be heard and felt. Whats that got to do with a physical perspective ? ( irony, my friend, irony.) So he's using metals instead of pvc's, hard ebony instead of rosewood, tuningpegs with shafts that turn in a metal housing - no plastic surfaces involved. - and probably frets of a harder, stiffer variety.... He's staying true to his philosophy . My humblest respect.
he mentioned a great instrument making your hair stand up, then played the national anthem. thats just good salesmanship. great guitars though.
man that was awesome! I don't own a PRS yet but I love Paul and love the company what a dude! His passion is second to none!
i'll make my own guitar and call it SRP - Suggested retail price, cheap, but i'll love it.
Bought a PRS AE60 this year and it is one of the most beautiful acoustic guitars I have played and by far the nicest at that price point. The tone is even and delicious, and shines even brighter than the guitar.
Find it hard to agree with Mr. Smith. To quote Top Gear's James May "Adding more chillies to a curry doesn't make it better". Simply adding more and more tone through using the best resonating parts isn't necessarily the answer. Jack White's Airline is one of the most iconic sounding guitars in the world and is made of fibreglass. Jimmy Page's danelectro which he used to record kashmir is made of cheap plastic parts. Seasick Steve's guitar only has three strings and has tones of tone! Many musicians' favourite guitars are not the ones made of the best parts but are often the ones with the most character.
Actually, the best sounding instruments are the ones played by those who have talent. Character is a fancy word for juju or mojo. Guitars arent magic because they're old. However, tone Is subjective. PRS are amazing sounding guitars and rightly so. Even open strings sound awesome on a small practice amp with no effects. What you're talking about is talent and recording prowess/experience, not just guitar tone in and of Itself.
You've taken away exactly the opposite message the Paul was trying to get across. He didn't advocate designing to add "more and more tone". The whole point was that design should build upon the goal of taking away as little as possible.
They're very different ideas.
Thank You PRS For Re' Educating Me About Guitar Tone Factuality' And Also Enlightening The Fact That 'Tone Passion' Is What This Energized Wise Gentelmen 'Is 'Was and 'Always Will Be About! And I Own an 'Always Wanted 'Since The Eighties-'Albeit''Affordable To Me' Asian Version' and It Sounds Most Awesome!🎸🔊🎼
I used to own a PRS custom guitar, and Wow did that thing sound amazing.
Latest Sports - Viral Sports Clips what happened to it
Paul Reed Smith is awesome.
Thanks for making such awesome instruments! I have 2 and I love them both. I feel like I put in 6 and they give me back 10!
I really admire his love and passion for the guitars no wonder he is the third most important guitar builder in history of electric guitar ! RESPECT
This strikes me as an enormous commercial for PRS guitars rather than an educational way of sharing his wisdom.
The whole point of the TED talk is for experts and smart/wise people to share their work and discoveries with people, to help raise them up to the level of the speaker. Paul's famous 21 Rules of Tone would have been a wonderful thing to share and explain here; they would have enriched the experience of guitar-making for all the luthiers and wannabe luthiers watching... as well as making a better commercial, exactly, by revealing just what makes a PRS guitar superior to a standard Strat.
But of course, he's holding that information back because these Rules of Tone are supposedly a trade secret. Contrary to the talk title, he doesn't want to help you build a better guitar yourself. He wants to convince you he can build a better guitar, so that you buy his.
PRS is undoubtedly a clever guy and a master builder, even if the guitars themselves are factory built now rather than hand luthiered by him. But the point of TED talks is to share your gifts with others. By keeping his best and most specific advice to himself, and only sharing very vague general statements about his philosophy of tone, he's not actually giving us his knowledge in a meaningful or helpful way--which is pretty much the whole point of a good TEDtalk.
What he doesn't want you to know is that every manufacturer of every musical instrument since centuries before the first Rickenbacker electric guitars has always known everything in his 21 rules of tone (nothing but a sales slogan), and a great deal more. He doesn't spell them out because they're all bloody obvious. Resonant materials and solid joints make for rich harmonics, and it's the harmonics, not the energy return per se, that give the instrument its richness. That's why PRS instruments handle well but sound so incredibly generic. IMO, he should stick to making necks. I thought his cheap bolt-on neck guitars from the 90s were the only PRS instruments with any tonal character.
The design is closer to Gibson Les Paul. Dual humbucker pickups, solid body, angled neck, 3+3 tuners. The first ones were too close to the Les Paul, and Gibson sued for copyright infringement. So PRS converted it to a doublecut design and went on from there. I'm a Les Paul fan, but I recognize that the PRS guitars share a lot of qualities. Primarily rich, deep and wide tone with sustain for days. It's inherent in the mahogany body and neck. The rest is artistry in making it look great without taking away too much of the sound.
From a physics perspective, the sounds that come out, the harmonics, are the energy return.
@@Xalor69 Of course Paul started off by looking at both Strats and LP's and was also a 'repairer' of these guitars. Its no secret that Pauls experience of fixing guitars led him to take the 'best' of both of those guitars and combined them into 1 guitar. The Scale length too is in between both a LP and Strat.
However, since those early days, he has continued to experiment, continued to look at everything and continued to improve the instruments. Whether that is changing the Tuners, the Bridge, the Nut, the frets etc. The reason PRS haven't jumped on board with current trend with the Stainless Steel fret wire, is because he doesn't like the way it sounds and as for 'fret wear', PRS use a very hard Nickel alloy that is harder than ANYONE else uses.
I also find it funny that Gibson will say their Maple flame tops are AAAAA yet still not as 'flamey' as a non-10top PRS. To me that also shows who gets the 'best' Maple. PRS are also extremely particular about how they 'cure' wood, how its dried, its moisture content etc.
I like his point about instruments taking on the persona of those that play them. I made my own electric guitar and did so out of my dream materials. It's close to one of the typical shapes for a guitar but has just enough difference that you'll never find one like it on a store shelf. This guitar has had me poured into it when I was at my best, at my worst and just bored trying to have some fun.
The crazy thing is when I hand the thing to other people. I find as they play it, their style begins to take on elements of my style even if they haven't ever heard me play. It's a very eerie feeling, almost like they are channeling me. This was particularly eerie meeting my fiance's honorary niece's boyfriend play on my guitar. I never met the dude before then, barely got to know him before they left us alone and I busted out the guitar as a common point seeing his interest in it was one of a musician. Yet he was mimicking my style. I hadn't so much as held the guitar for more than the time it took to pass it to him and show him that the volume knobs are kinda scratchy. Instead of using the tricks I showed him to get rid of the scratchiness he simply did like I do, embrace it as part of the sound. I could tell however from what he played that his style was so much different from mine normally but he was playing in my personal style.
That's really cool, man
From a former Gibson player (which I still love), PRS all the way. Stunning guitars, both visually and sound.
After seeing this I see that Paul Reed Smith is just as eccentric as a guitar maker should be.
seeing as he is a pretty smart man, i love how he chose to do the jimi hendrix version of the song... "for the troops"
He’s so cool! Love him
Guitar tone is purely subjective. I don't care a single ioda about cost or material. I only care about how it feels and if the sound is good to my ears. My favorite guitar right now is an Ibanez Mikro 5-string bass and it sounds soooo good and feels so good to play, i'd never change anything about it. I got it for like $100. I've played $5000 basses before that I hated. All players know this and most have experienced it.
The best Tedtalks I've seen.
My impression was that Ted Talks had a higher rhetorical standard. PRS is a genius and his guitars renowned to be sure--but it's not often clear what this man is talking about. He seems unable to understand what his listener wants to know in order to read him clearly. The concepts are there, but he seems unable to put them into words.
I agree with you. He seeks to impart his thoughts but, great as they are, they don't come across clearly and smoothly as they might. But he still makes great guitars.
Did you know, that this is a TEDx Talk. there is a difference between TED Talks, and TEDx Talks.
I didn't know that.
I would go further. He is purposely trying to confuse the audience. There are RUclips videos out there that actually show a lot of what is going on
He knows exactly what he’s saying. It’s just that nobody else does. I’m pretty sure this only really makes sense to electric guitarists which are a small percentage of the viewing audience
PRS guitars are not overpriced. They are magnificent. A US built PRS is a guitar that will last your entire life, and get passed down through generations. For someone whos passion lives with guitars, it is a non issue to pay a premium for a premium build that will become a life long friend. People throw money into fleeting ventures all the time and don't think twice about it.
I put 6 into my girlfriend and got out in 5.9
miamigroove That's hilarious!!!LMAO
+miamigroove Shocker!
+miamigroove I put in 6 and got 7 out
+miamigroove I put 1 into mine and got 2 lines on the test out of it
I put 6 in, but someone else put 9 in...
If all Americans had the passion and energy and focus of Mr. Smith, it would be a different country.
The body of an e-guitar (the "tonewood) doesn't effect the amplified tone in any significant way.
Kanami Tono from Band Maid plays PRS and after seeing them live, she makes it wail through her Mesa Boogie Triple Rectifier with 4 X 12” drivers. Totally amazing ! Paul has such passion, Love it !
Totally.
"Give me any guitar and I will make it sound the same in five minutes" Keith Richards
Huge respect to PRS from a huge Fender fan and user here
When you play a perfect guitar in your own opinion, which could differ to somebody else, it's not going to sound great unless you make love to it. You need to feel it and be into it in the moment.
This blew my mind.
I've watched this a few times. great ad for PRS. I still bought a Taylor
I’ve been playing Guitar 30+years, bought my first PRS 2 weeks ago and realised I used to make Noise(pleasant tho it was) excuse the cliche but it’s true, I’m now making Music… I’m truly flabbergasted
The blokes telling and selling The Truth, and long may it continue.
1:27 Mark Tremonti BABY!! ALTER BRIDGE
James Rodolfo yeeee
Broken Wings in top 10 alt rock songs of all time imo
My favorite guitarist
James Rodolfo YES !!!!!
James Rodolfo I love your videos
A lot of people commenting that have obviously never played a PRS. Yes, his talk wasn't the greatest, but the guitars that his company makes really are amazing. Ive played a few PRS's, from a $700 SE EG up to a $9000 private stock, and even the SE felt very solid and played great.
Got reverb?
What a tone and gorgeous guitar, wow. Great bends as well
I thought he was going to build a guitar with those pieces of wood. Am I alone?
Yes yer alone ha
Still ALONE
Yep me too.
Brilliant lecture Paul . Thank you
every guitar is different, even the same brand and same model, from the same factory.
So is a baseball bat. Everything that involves natural elements works that way.
Grande uomo e grande artigiano, chapeau mr PRS!
Holy shit, the more I dig into the luthiers world and the most I realize that it's full of non scientific alchemistic bullshit.
Guess one have to accept it as it is - a good luthier just does his work well without trying to look 'scientific', and that results in good guitars. Just like a good plumber doesn't need to have a master's degree in hydrodynamics, vortices in liquids, etc., and have a dozen studies published. There are luthiers who try to speculate regarding scientific stuff and produce awful instruments. Others just do what they do best and get a great result. There's just very little or no connection.
+fix6661 Are you insane?! There is a huge connection!!! Do you happen to know a luthier that could credit what you say? I believe it would be more accurate to say luthery is an artwork; it has its technical sides, but in the end you can't teach someone what art is or how to create it. It is a matter of subjection one must learn on their own under the guidance of others. A purely scientific approach to luthery is not a work of art and will lack it's own proper/unique expression. Please don't stoop luthery as a profession to the same level as plumbing, that is really demeaning.
What a nonsense. What do you have against plumbers? Why you say that comparing somebody to plumber is 'demeaning'? Don't you find it extremely rude and offensive? Do you want to say there are 'good' and 'bad' professions? Those working with wood are doing an artwork, and those working with piping are somehow inferior - is that what you're trying to say?
+fix6661 Not all woodwork can be considered a work of art. Plumbing quite simply doesn't count as art in any context except dadaism. Woodwork can be for aesthetics, plumbing is entirely utilitarian. Construe it how you wish, you know what I meant. I'm not commenting after this point.
First, you talk about an 'art', whereas P.R.S. talks about science and physics. Don't you find a contradiction here? I'm not saying you cannot treat making an instrument like an art, if you will. But I'm saying, don't try to overcomplicate something with your unnecessary 'scientific' theories.
Second, I happen to know a brilliant luthier who makes very nice instruments. Here's what he says:
"One can discuss enlessly wood resonance, but in the end it's all just discussions, as luthier will make an instrument from tonewoods he has at his disposal. Most of my customers discuss each and every detail of an instument, except 'resonances'. Sometime age of tonewood could be discussed, but in many cases luthier doesn't know it, and can only judge the materials based on personal estimations. I think customers know that taking certain tonewoods of a certain quality results in a certain result which is within certain tolerance. And there is no need for empty talking which doesn't lead anywhere."
Please, do not comment after this point.
i didn't know he played. the electric guitar part was great. little bit more gain than i'd use, but gotta hand it to him, he made that thing sing like a violin.
***** leo fender didn't play...so...
***** the point with leo was that he designed guitars and amplifiers for a living, surrounding himself with guitars, and didn't play. why would i automatically think the owner of a company actually plays? i'm not even sure why you care, i was just trying to compliment the guy.
I don't own a PRS, but I know musicians that do. They are upper-end stock models. The quality is good, but overpriced (IMO). These guitars all sound really good. They don't have an iconic sound, as some have mentioned, but they have a very good and malleable sound. I own Carvin guitars which, like a PRS, don't have an iconic sound. They are high-quality, high-value, and malleable. The 'iconic' guitars people have mentioned, were the first-comers. They broke new ground in a big space of sound. But after enough iconic guitars filled that space, there wasn't room left in that space for something far enough away from other guitars to be 'iconic'. That said, I think there's great value in having a guitar that can cover a decent chunk of the sound space, even if it can't claim it as it's own. And, it's got to feel good to play, and make you happy. A happy player is a better player.
i traded in my carvin for prs. not to knock carvin, because they really are good quality instruments. the biggest difference I noticed was how the neck felt, and the tone on the prs was nicer imho, more open/resonant. every instrument's going to be different though, so perhaps I got lucky with this one. to each their own
They have a sounds trust me.
Prs is just a flex
I love how Maryland ornery he sounds. We need more of that out there.
Paul is incredible as a guitar maker, who took production onto a whole new level. But I don't agree to all his opinions.
First, if you play a guitar in an ensemble with other instruments (AKA rock band), the guitar doesn't have to sound like an orchestra. The band sounds better, if everyone has his range of frequencies. I played PRS guitars for years and I found out more often than not, that thin sounding guitars like a Telly fit better into complex scenarios like a 10-piece band with brass section. Conclusion: the tool has to fit into the scenario.
Second, PRS states that the ultimate goal is to trigger the right feelings in the musician and the audience. Now, that has nothing to do with physics. But very much with socialization and chemical state of the brain.
You are right about instruments having different roles in an orchestral environment. But a manufacturer looks for the best sound from their instrument. PRS surely has models fitting different applications. Solo players prefer more wholesome sounds while those in a band would like the ones you mentioned.
Also, while chemistry and biology explain the phenomena of good feelings, you can only achieve those by making the best instrument, through physics.
Man this guy was all over the place... 🤯
I love paul reed smith and what he does, I want to make that clear. however I don't fully agree with his 'theory'. it's not really a theory in my opinion. it's a very personal point of view that is in fact the way he does things. he is perfectionist. It's not a matter of subtracting or adding. it's a matter of mastering the art of an instrument. and there is no ceiling, because all guitars are and sound different and that's how it should be. if he believes what he claims, then it means he thinks he has the wolrd's best 'least subtractive' guitars out there. which just isn't true. nobody can claim any guitar manufacturer is better than the other (if we're talking about high quality instruments obviously).
I think PRS has his vision on what a guitar should feel, look, and sound like. and that's amazing, it's great. but I just don't think there is a specific ceiling to a guitar. it's a very personal view that different people differ by.
I don't agree, but he is still definitely a great thing to have in the guitar world. I am very proud of what he's been able to do with his great guitars.
All he is talking about is energy transfer from force to sounds and resistance.
Adrian Massi ... And what if someone likes a Tusq nut instead of a bone nut? is he buying an inferior instrument? is his instrument now 5.0/6.0 instead of 5.9?
no, it isn't. and his whole presentation makes this claim.
it really doesn't matter how much energy is lost in the guitar, as long as for YOU it's a 6.0/6.0.
His theory of the BEST guitar is the sort of instrument that gives most of the feedback from the energy that the artist has put in. His point of view derives from his occupation, a guitar maker.
Different manufacturers have different opinions and terms regarding what the best means when it comes to guitar. Ergo, I don't suppose he or TED are forcing people to accept what they think is best. Rather, it's just a refreshing reminder and an insight.
Some people might say "My guitar is the best one because I like it!" but as a professional manufacturer, he mustn't say that. LOL
The source of the sound is the string. After that, it is subtractive.
"... not really a theory... it's a very personal point of view". is that not what a theory is? someone's idea that they go out to attempt to prove? I don't know why this bugged me so much.
I loved this man's talk, he made me think about guitar manufacturing differently. Reading the comments, I can't believe so many people do not understand him. What he is staying is basically this: What makes one instrument sound better than another is how little the materials take away from the sound. A very well crafted guitar will be crafted so subtly that you will hear so much of the tone and sound of the insttument, while a cheap one will be made with woods and materials that drown out the sound of the guitar, acting as "mufflers". 6 in and 5.9 out means very little of that sound is lost to the "mufflers". Obviously 6 in and 6 out is pretty unrealistic, 6 in and 5.9 out is about as good as possible.
This is what gets me... Just because you put 6.0 in and get 5.9 out doesn't necessarily make the guitar sound BETTER. Only LOUDER. In fact, there may be certain frequencies you want to attenuate, like some very high frequencies that can make the acoustic guitar sound shrill and ear-piercing, for example. Would you rather have a guitar that was at 5.2 that sounded sweet and rounded in the trebles, or a guitar that was 5.9 and shrill?
Paul also takes a back-handed stab at the builders who believe that the back is an active part of the sound production. As an aspiring builder who also believes this, I feel there is room for both views - the back as a "reflector" of sound, and the back as a "disperser" of sound. Maybe it's not perceived by the casual listener, but the feeling and sound is real to the player - which is what inspires one to play an instrument in the first place. Besides, if an active back plays no role in the sound of an acoustic guitar, as Paul has continuously claimed, then why bother making them out of different exotic woods, other than to fleece his customers? A maple back would sound the same as Brazilian rosewood if you braced the maple enough, right Paul?
Paul also constantly refers to the Torres he auditioned and x-rayed. He talks about how loud it is, how it projects... Guess what? Most smaller guitars tend to project more, and seem louder, than their larger counterparts. NOT necessarily because of the heavier bracing in the back (which was probably done because it was a 4-piece maple back). He has also stated in other videos that his fan braces behind the bridge were inspired by this guitar. But it is not a new idea - many builders had done that years before PRS started making acoustics. Fan braces in the Spanish guitar help emphasize the treble strings, which is part of the challenge of the Spanish guitar builder. It's the opposite with the steel-string. There is an abundance of treble by the nature of the strings, and attenuating those unwanted frequencies while and emphasizing the bass strings more is the challenge.
I'll save you all 20 minutes of your day: "Acoustic instruments are the sonic ideal. As soon as you electrify them you take away from that ideal. At PRS we design electric guitsrs that take as little away from the ideal as possible. The end."
Thst said I still find PRS guitars to be beautiful, but sterile and hugely overpriced.
Blech319 They're not all over priced, the handmade CUSTOM AND limited run (also private stock) are priced high due to quality and amount while CE and SE, are more affordable because they're mass produced but still quality made.
Hugely overpriced? Maybe their high end Americans, but the SE is criminally underpriced.
Too bad you missed his point completely.
I agree, the SE model are a fantastic value, I have a couple. My experience with them led me to go all out and get a couple Core models, and now I am really spoiled. I believe Paul is really focused on what makes a guitar perform correctly, and works to perfect it. The guitar just kind of disappears and gets out of the way when playing it, enabling a direct "Sound in my head" to "Sound from the Guitar" connection if that make sense.
How are they sterile? Because they aren’t hit or miss?
WOW! Thank you Paul.
Okay, I remember back in the 90's a lot of stores and dealers were hard selling PRS guitars. These guys were pushy, and no matter what you wanted, they'd say "Oh no, you want a Paul Reed Smith". Going to guitar and gear shows they were EVERYWHERE. Other than stores wanting to make a sale, what was going on back then? One of the stories I heard was that the factory had over produced them, and were dumping the excess inventory, and stores were stuck with far more than they could sell.
The factory produces guitars and the guitar stores buy them. So if these stores were pushing them it was because the STORE over bought them. You cannot buy PRSs directly from the factory. That’s not how it works. They are just unbelievable instruments and I’m sure the salespeople were just excited to sell them.
As a guitarist myself I love this man
Tone is subjective. Play a guitar that sounds good to you. I've played $100 guitars made of the cheapest materials that sounded way better than some $3,000 guitars made of the finest materials available.
That may be so for some electric guitars but not for acoustic, and besides it is how plays, and how stable it is over time which is what you pay for. He explains that a good instrument subtracts less, so you can play it very softly and get a great resonating sound. A cheap guitar will have to be played and amped hard - which is fine if that is what you want to do with it - agreed it is subjective but I disagree with the implication that the price tag is purely related to the tonal qualities. Ta.
What you say is not relevant to the issue of the talk. Pay attention.
You're arguing in bad faith. Just because there's a guitar for $100 that sounds better than a $3000 one does not mean that your claim is the norm. Be honest - the norm is that better materials = better sound most of the time. We aren't chasing a unicorn here.
Well done Paul...well done!
I always try to go to 11.
Bought myself a PRS few months ago, had dead spots all over the fretboard, went and got myself a les paul as a replacement and couldn’t be happier
I love Paul Reed Smith and I love PRS Guitars but let's admit it, he's not a good public speaker.
Lol he is a bit of a dweeb, but his enthusiasm and passion are just absolutely contagious.
I doubt Paul IS a public speaker. But there's no doubt he has the balls to do a TED Talk. For that, he should be commended.
I disagree. He is an excellent t public speaker. I could listen to him forever. You just aren't use to people who actually have something to say
it is pretty good
Or maybe you should admit you’re not a good listener.
G-damn the sustain on that PRS guitar!!!!
Better than my 2008 Gibson LP Studio that's for sure. But it has still given me many many of hours of great joy so I'm grateful and not jealous of people who have a PRS guitar.....well maybe a little jealous. Lol
Its really funny that Paul says that great instruments aren't very subtractive but electric guitar pickups by their very design are inductively subtractive. Especially humbuckers. I am not saying he is completely wrong but timbre is a extremely complex subject and some frequencies do need to be subtracted while others need to remain.PRS guitars are fine instruments and do generally have their own sound and appeal these days.
+Paul Graham (Guitar) First off, we can stop using this bullshit rehash of the word "attenuation". Second, he was talking about acoustic attenuation the whole time which is not the same as inductive attenuation. Third. acoustic attenuation is far less frequency selective than inductive attenuation.
***** Acoustic attenuation with an electric guitar? Interesting concept since you don't hear the acoustics of an electric guitar through an amp.
Attenuation means generally any reduction in signal strength. So how do you mean bullshit rehash? The only bullshit is in your comment.
What you hear when you plug in a guitar to an amp and strum is the mechanical (acoustic) energy of the strings (which are acoustically coupled to the body by physical contact) being converted into electrical energy by means of induction. Do you not realize that or are you willfully ignorant.
Also, tell me where you've ever read the term "non-subtractive" anywhere in a technical paper about acoustic dampening. Go ahead. I'll wait.
***** Oh no. Someone who believes in electric guitar tonewoods. My condolences.
Also tell me where you you've seen "non subtractive" anywhere in my posts?
I never said I believe in "tonewood". Just because someone understands the concept of mechanical waves propagating through wood and reflecting at boundaries doesn't mean they think that a basswood guitar is significant acoustically different from a swamp ash guitar. You may think it's edgy or whatever to be a dissenter of the tonewood school of thought but you don't have to just throw physics out the window entirely. There's no magical boundary condition at the nut and bridge that confine all the strings kinetic energy. Those mechanical waves propagating through the wood and reflecting back causing minor interference.
I never said you said "non-subtractive" but you seemed to think I was wrong when I said that it was a bullshit term so you must have though it was valid. Attenuation isn't strictly used in the context of electrical signals. It can apply to mechanics and photonics as well. You don't like "attenuation", fine. Say "dampening" instead. "Subtractive" makes no sense. I don't even think that's a real word. It's a tern used in like imaging and that's it. It sounded like either PRS had a rudimentary understanding of what he was talking about or he was just dumbing it down for the audience. I'm going with the latter because a lot of the talk seemed dumbed down.
What a tone!