I think Strandbergs suck

[bigcupholder]

Generally, less mass=less sustain. Strandberg is one of the lowest mass form factors I can think of as far as guitars go.

Generally, that's complete nonsense. That's a myth from the 70's when people were trying to justify their ridiculous 11 lbs Les Pauls.

More rigidity = more sustain. Anything that robs energy from the string vibrating decreases the sustain: the neck or neck joint flexing, fret buzz, pickups that are too high, a bad contact point or loose bridge saddle, etc. The wood at the tail end of the guitar isn't going to have a measurable effect on the sustain.

I bolded fret buzz because that's common with bad store setups and it's easily fixable.

 

[ArtDecade]

The QC problems are Strandberg's fault - not Cort. The ordering company clearly feels that the instruments are within the terms of the contract agreed upon. My guess is that they are more interested in lower cost production and making more profit than providing a higher-end instrument at less of a margin.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

I love Strandbergs. I've owned a Boden OS, Boden Classic, Metal 7, Metal neck-thru 6, RAS lock and NX 6. Which is absurd, I should have just kept the first one. TF is wrong with me.

I love the endurneck and the body shape. The light weight, the way that they stay in tune like Floyds and you can restring the whole thing in like 3 minutes. As a proof of concept Strandberg is incredible. And when you get a good one you get a really good one.

The problem is that they're more common now. They're stocked at Sweetwater and GC, Thomann, and they're becoming popular. They're making more guitars than they ever have, and their QC seems to either be slipping a little with increased production or because they're making so many, the percentile of duds has remained the same but is becoming more vocalized with their increased sales.

Ultimately Strandberg is an import guitar that costs the price of a USA made guitar. People then expect the quality of a USA made guitar, when the guitar is made in the same Indonesian factory as Solar, Jackson, etc. it may cost $2500 but every other guitar in that factory probably medians in the $500-1000 range.

If you're going to buy a Strandy you just have to accept that you're buying an indonesian import guitar that costs much more, because you're buying the design of Strandberg, which you cannot get anywhere else. The extra 33-50% price hike isn't necessarily reflected in the craftsmanship, it's reflected in the endurneck, body shape, fanned frets, etc.

That's just my $.02.

 

[HellBent]

Generally, that's complete nonsense. That's a myth from the 70's when people were trying to justify their ridiculous 11 lbs Les Pauls.

More rigidity = more sustain. Anything that robs energy from the string vibrating decreases the sustain: the neck or neck joint flexing, fret buzz, pickups that are too high, a bad contact point or loose bridge saddle, etc. The wood at the tail end of the guitar isn't going to have a measurable effect on the sustain.

I bolded fret buzz because that's common with bad store setups and it's easily fixable.

People on this forum are so rude, man. Why does everyone have to clap back so hard at literally everything?
To your point professor, if "anything that robs the energy from the string vibrating" causes a loss on sustain, wouldn't more mass of any type (heavier body) under a vibrating string equal a more stable and rigid connection preventing energy loss thus increasing sustain? Surely a solid piece of brass is more rigid by virtue of its mass than an equivalent volume of poplar. You're kind of proving my point with what you said to a degree.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

I didn't really believe any of that more mass=more sustain nonsense either until I got a Gibson LP. That guitar can hold a note for almost ever, it's wild. I'm still not committing to an opinion because I really don't give a shit and I don't know why anyone would. Why the fuck do you need your guitar to sustain a note for 45 seconds? What purpose does that serve?

If I was in a guitar center and some dude was just holding a g note on a $7,000 Les Paul and his terrible tube amp treble tone all proud of himself I'd have to resist the urge to unplug his amp.

 

[ArtDecade]

If I was in a guitar center and some dude was just holding a g note on a $7,000 Les Paul and his terrible tube amp treble tone all proud of himself I'd have to resist the urge to unplug his amp.

[Blues Lawyer leaves the chat]

 

[Derek Spear]

I've been playing Strandbergs for about 2 1/2 years now...currently have 3 of them that I adore (NX7, J7 RAS LOCK and more recently an NX6 Japan market-exclusive). The J7 RAS LOCK with the solid alder body definitely sustains a lot better than the other 2 (without being that much heavier)...and it's my main workhorse guitar. That said, all 3 of them badly needed fret dressing (reminding me of the one time I purchased a Squier ) and a proper setup. I'd love to have one of the J Artisan ones...but not for $7000. Overall, I'm glad that I made the switch and find it difficult to go back to playing anything else. The ESP Original Arrow I ordered a couple of years ago has become a case queen. Just my $0.02.

 

[bigcupholder]

People on this forum are so rude, man. Why does everyone have to clap back so hard at literally everything?
To your point professor, if "anything that robs the energy from the string vibrating" causes a loss on sustain, wouldn't more mass of any type (heavier body) under a vibrating string equal a more stable and rigid connection preventing energy loss thus increasing sustain? Surely a solid piece of brass is more rigid by virtue of its mass than an equivalent volume of poplar. You're kind of proving my point with what you said to a degree.

No, because extra wood at the tail end of the guitar has no impact on the rigidity of the body or neck where it matters.

If you think adding extra mass to the body way away from the strings accomplishes anything, then try glueing several feet of a 2x4 to stick out the tail end of the guitar and see if it makes a difference.

 

[spawnofthesith]

I love Strandbergs. I've owned a Boden OS, Boden Classic, Metal 7, Metal neck-thru 6, RAS lock and NX 6. Which is absurd, I should have just kept the first one. TF is wrong with me.

I love the endurneck and the body shape. The light weight, the way that they stay in tune like Floyds and you can restring the whole thing in like 3 minutes. As a proof of concept Strandberg is incredible. And when you get a good one you get a really good one.

The problem is that they're more common now. They're stocked at Sweetwater and GC, Thomann, and they're becoming popular. They're making more guitars than they ever have, and their QC seems to either be slipping a little with increased production or because they're making so many, the percentile of duds has remained the same but is becoming more vocalized with their increased sales.

Ultimately Strandberg is an import guitar that costs the price of a USA made guitar. People then expect the quality of a USA made guitar, when the guitar is made in the same Indonesian factory as Solar, Jackson, etc. it may cost $2500 but every other guitar in that factory probably medians in the $500-1000 range.

If you're going to buy a Strandy you just have to accept that you're buying an indonesian import guitar that costs much more, because you're buying the design of Strandberg, which you cannot get anywhere else. The extra 33-50% price hike isn't necessarily reflected in the craftsmanship, it's reflected in the endurneck, body shape, fanned frets, etc.

That's just my $.02.

Yeah that sums it up pretty well, and what keeps me coming back in circles still considering it. If you want a strandberg, only a strandberg is doing what strandberg is doing. Kind of the last frontier of actual innovation in guitar design to date

I wish I liked the color option of the essentials line. Totally comfortable with that price point. Lack of some features would be a bit of a bummer but probably could live with it. Fingers crossed some different colors come out eventually

 

[nightsprinter]

I didn't really believe any of that more mass=more sustain nonsense either until I got a Gibson LP. That guitar can hold a note for almost ever, it's wild. I'm still not committing to an opinion because I really don't give a shit and I don't know why anyone would. Why the fuck do you need your guitar to sustain a note for 45 seconds? What purpose does that serve?

Never owned a Gibson but I feel the GAS rising.... don't do this to me, man... I'm trying to abide by the "no guitars til 2025" mandate

 

[JSKrev]

Cannot confirm for my Paul Masvidal Signature Boden OS 6. Mass is a factor, but not the only one. I believe adequate stiffness of the wood, neck/body connection, hardware-materials and installation can easily outweigh a mass "deficit". Basically everything that contributes to dampening will kill sustain.

Something different about Strandberg issues: I saw a video by Andre Fludd where he explained his preference for guitars without zero fret. I have never heard that opinion before and it surprised me, as zero-frets are usually sold as a premium feature on more expensive instruments, citing a more coherent tone between open and fretted notes, as well as an automatically well adjusted string height, compared to nut slots that have to be filed down correctly.
Andre's argument is that the strings will overtime dent the frets, due to the constant pressure, and create grooves. I have three headless guitars with zero frets, the strandberg, my Valravn and a DIY build. Also a Le Fay Bass, a boutique instrument, with zero fret and grooves in the headstock instead of a nut. What I found is that when I am bending on the treble strings on the strandberg, which I bought second hand, the strings seem to be stuck and then suddenly 'plink' out of position, which can be heard and eben more so felt. It doesn't happen on my DIY guitar, which is a mess otherwise, neither on the Valravn. The DIY is about 10 years older than the strandberg that was produced somewhere between 2014-16, the Valravn is much younger at around 2022. The Valravn and DIY have stainless steel frets, not sure about the Strandberg. The Le Fay doesn't present that problem, despite having non-steel frets. Might have to do with bigger bass-string radiuses and/or a shallower angle behind the zero-fret?

Before Andre's video, I thought something was wrong with the strandberg's nut or string-clamp. Has anyone else had similar experiences with zero-fret instruments in general and Strandbergs in particular?

Man, there's clearly been a paradigm shift on that. Zero frets used to be associated with cheap guitars that had crappy nuts.

 

[HellBent]

No, because extra wood at the tail end of the guitar has no impact on the rigidity of the body or neck where it matters.

If you think adding extra mass to the body way away from the strings accomplishes anything, then try glueing several feet of a 2x4 to stick out the tail end of the guitar and see if it makes a difference.

That's not what I'm saying.
Material density = mass/volume. By using a harder and more dense material that increases rigidity you're also increasing overall mass by VOLUME. Mass is not about how big the body is, it's about what it's made of. A small body made of solid brass should sustain longer than a body made of cardboard because it's overall density and mass is higher and by virtue of that, it's also more rigid. I think we agree on that and I think we're saying the same thing 2 different ways.

 

[Dayn]

No, because extra wood at the tail end of the guitar has no impact on the rigidity of the body or neck where it matters.

If you think adding extra mass to the body way away from the strings accomplishes anything, then try glueing several feet of a 2x4 to stick out the tail end of the guitar and see if it makes a difference.

That's why upright basses have effectively infinite sustain because they have the entire earth's worth of sustain on their end pin. They only lose sustain because each note vibrates some of the gas in the atmosphere out into space.

 

[bigcupholder]

That's not what I'm saying.
Material density = mass/volume. By using a harder and more dense material that increases rigidity you're also increasing overall mass by VOLUME. Mass is not about how big the body is, it's about what it's made of. A small body made of solid brass should sustain longer than a body made of cardboard because it's overall density and mass is higher and by virtue of that, it's also more rigid. I think we agree on that and I think we're saying the same thing 2 different ways.

You're changing your argument midstream here. The topic was never density. You said mass and said that strandbergs lack mass, but the only place they significantly differ from non-headless guitars is that they don't have extra wood behind the bridge, which I pointed out doesn't matter.

They're also not made of radically different materials than other guitars, so again, density isn't a relevant discussion here. But if you insist, you're still wrong about that too, because materials can be dense but not very rigid - e.g. lead, mercury, water, etc.

But whatever, I'm out. I just wanted to dispel an internet myth about heavier guitars. I don't want to teach high school physics online for free

 

[gunshow86de]

Having previously owned 4 of the Indonesian production models prior to my J Artisan, the trick to getting a good Strandberg is to have Sugi make it.

 

[narad]

They're also not made of radically different materials than other guitars, so again, density isn't a relevant discussion here. But if you insist, you're still wrong about that too, because materials can be dense but not very rigid - e.g. lead, mercury, water, etc.

Ah yes, technically wrong -- the best kind of wrong.

 

[Alberto7]

A 1 pound block of rubber will not vibrate the same as a 1 pound block of carbon fiber, both of which have kind of similar densities. Neither will a 1 pound block of said carbon fiber vs a 1 pound thin plate of the same material.

It's not just density though, but also shape. I admittedly forget half of my courses in vibrations, (not my area of expertise in my years after starting work as an engineer) but it really does come down to stiffness, mass of the oscillating/reciprocating body(ies), damping, and resonant frequencies. Guitars are very complex systems from a vibrations point of view, and the very shape of them will change not just things like decay and sustain, but also which harmonics will starting decaying first. The different parts of a guitar and their dimensions wiĺl also change its vibrational properties. A lot of these little details on their own are quite imperceptible to most people's ears.

My Oni Essi 8 is quite a light and thin guitar, but it acoustically projects sound very loudly, and it sustains for long. Dan has purposely designed it this way. An example of that is the inclusion of two carbon fiber rods in the headstock along the outer edges. Also, he gets away with having a super long neck on these guitars relative to body size because he has managed to make them quite stiff with all the internal carbon fiber structures he makes. I can't tell you that I know exactly what difference in sound and sustain these things make individually, but it's a ton of little considerations like these added together that can make a bigger difference. Props to all the skilled luthiers out there. These guys are basically engineers without a degree.

Also:

I don't want to teach high school physics online for free

Vibrations are not "high school physics". They are a last-year course in mechanical engineering degrees, and use a ton of equations that draw parallels to electricity and magnetism laws as well as control systems. Entire graduate programs span out of vibrational analysis.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

Jesus Christ guys

 

[Pietjepieter]

Played a Strandberg bodem 8 recently, and guess what? Itdid not suck at all

Is played and sounded nice and is was light and comfortable.
Off course I only applied sweeptapping and zeroonezerrozerroone riffs so don’t know for sustain