I'm curious which is better to you

Tough call.

The sampling rate really makes it difficult to hear subtle differences. Lots of warble and underwaterish type of noise in the recording.

Overall I heard the vintage uke as louder, harsher, and a bit more up-front with the sound. The sound was lively though.

To my ears the modern uke was a bit more reserved, quiet, and sounded a bit more dull.

This is one comparison where the sampling noises makes it a challenge for me to say I like one over the other.
 
The older one has a brasher, woodier sound. The new one sounds plastic-y and kind of dull.

Is it just me, or do most of Martin's instruments sound pretty dead when they're new? I really, really wanted to like a $3000+ limited-edition Martin guitar in a store, but a $500 Seagull absolutely blew it away. :eek: But a friend of mine has a Martin from the early 70s and it sings.
 
I cant tell the freakin difference!...I kept going back & forth....but no noticeable difference to me....???
 
I hear a difference, but it is subtle. The older one has more wooden guts and ramble in its tone. But, yeah, the difference took a few clicks back and forth.

Putting aside their historical value, not sure one gets a good musical bang for the buck on one of those.
 
Can't tell em apart.

They sound and look identical. :confused:
 
The new one sounds nasally compared with the older one -- possibly something to do with the top needing playing in.

I'd quite happily look after either, but the very thought of a 80-90 year old instrument in that condition makes me cry with envy.
 
I guess I would put it as the old one having more resonance, especially in the bass notes. I may have a coworker come over later today and play just the instrument clips while I'm not looking and see if I can tell them apart.
 
The old one is definitely louder. In terms of the QUALITY the older one has a bit more midrange oomph. Perhaps the new one will open up in a year or 30.
 
The older one has so more dimension coming from it, musically. It sounds broader and not as "nasally" as someone else mentioned.
 
Looking at the responses everyone seems to be in agreement that the older one has more. . . . more something.

The question is: What is everyone listening through to make their determinations?

I'm listening through an iMac connected to a presonus firebox and Yamaha HSM 50 studio monitors which are self powered. My listening/recording area is not completely treated but I have GIK bass traps and panels. I agree with the poster who wrote about the sampling rate, perhaps compression as well?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no authority on anything except, perhaps, what I like but. . .
 
now the big question Will the new one sound like the old one after aging 80 years.....And did new martins bought in 1930 sound like the new one on this video????? hmmmmmm
 
Which of todays models will sound that way in 80 years... That's the question.

There were probably a number of those vintage Martins that didn't survive, or didn't blossom in terms of sound.


As for what I am listening through...

A respectable sound card with a set of Bose over the ear headphones, or a Rotel 820-BX integrated amp with Boston Accousitcs A-70 speakers.
 
By my ears it did seem like the vintage one had a bit more of a shimmer on the high end to it. It seemed to sparkle a bit more. (But then it might have as much to do with the actual koa used as much as the age of the instrument.)

I actually wish he hadn't told us which was which so it could have been an actual blind test.

I was under the impression that as wood opens up and ages it gains more resonance and warmer mid-ranges, so I'm not so sure that the newer one would pick up the shiny bits on the high end that the older one seems to have. (But I could also be wrong about that. I won't pretend to have much of a clue about such things.)
 
Top Bottom