You Get What You Pay For?

And then there is the double blind test where in addition to the conditions listed above the listener doesn't know which ukulele is being played or when the ukulele is switched to another ukulele.

They've done that with Stradivarius violins, and the results weren't good for the owners of the $1 million instruments. :D
 
Has anyone done some blind testing between Dolphin or Coloured Mahalo or Ohana SK10, and the ukes made by Kala, Ohana and Mahalo which cost 10 times as much? It is very interesting that the blind testing seems to be only focussed on one market segment. I think we should also be discussing if we are getting what we are paying for in the $500 market compared to the $50 market to add some balance. Why do you buy a $500 Kala when you can get one for $50? Has anyone blind tested the lower costing production ranges from low to high in price to see if the value is in the sound? For Example: Can an Ohana TK10 be set-up and played to sound better than a Kala KA-SA-TE-C, does this Kala model really sound five times better than the Ohana?

As it happens I have a couple of the basic Kala laminate Sopranos and their (new) replacement cost would be around £70 for one and £90 for the other, the more expensive one is slightly better made and sounds marginally better too - it’s worth the extra £20 to me. I also have a Mahalo and its (new) replacement cost would be around £35. My particular Mahalo cost very little, it is worn, chipped and bruised - so obviously second hand - and it was bought as something tough (which it is) to leave in my car. All three Ukes have been well set-up and have bone saddles, the Kala’s have M600’s on them and the Mahalo Soprano has trialed both pre-used Aquila Concerts and M600’s from my spares box - normally I find that Ukes sound noticeably better with the M600’s over Aquila’s but in my trial fitting of both it took a while for the Martins to be perceived as a little better. I believe that all three Ukes have been ‘sorted’ to just about the limit of what can be done to maximise their performance, the Mahalo’s limit is clearly below the Kalas’ limit but (once ‘sorted out’) it’s still in the ‘useable instrument’ range.

Although it’s definitely nothing special (it’s just a cheap beater) and even though it’s not a keeper (on reflection it doesn’t pass that threshold of satisfaction in use for me) I’ve still quite taken by my cheap Mahalo - that surprised me too. The Mahalo has responded really well to the work put into it and has become a ‘nice enough’ sounding and playing instrument. It’s a bit basic but it’s not un-enjoyable to use, it makes tuneful music and I could happily take it into the garden, travelling and down to the pub without fear of damage - wonderful value at the price and (now) quite a functional item too. However, in side by side testing, there’s a clear (backward) step in sound volume and quality between the Mahalo and the Kala’s and yes, overall, the Kala laminates are worth double the new price of the Mahalo. That’s not to knock the ‘improved’ Mahalo but rather to recognise the Kalas’ obvious superiority in sound quality, sound volume, finish and construction - Kala have given me at least as much as I have paid for.

To my mind there is an exponential curve that tracks item cost versus item quality or performance, the lower part of the curve is almost a linear relationship but the final part is effectively flat. The lower part of the curve takes you through items that offer still offer relative valve (price versus performance) but aren’t good enough to satisfy in use. My Mahalo and Kala’s are on the near linear lower part of the curve, but quite how much further that linear part of the curve extends is open to debate and so is the measurement of quality too. For most people the Kala’s lie comfortably above and the Mahalo lies on or below the minimum acceptable performance point on the curve. For a plain finished Soprano I think that the price versus quality curve is effectively linear to near £100 and virtually flat at £500. (£600 is the price of a Wunderkammer Soprano, there’s a wait time for them and IMHO they’re as good as they come. Held one, played one, heard it played by a good player I know. They’re professional quality as used by Sam Muir too.) So about £100 can buy you about 2/3’s of the possible quality / performance and the final 1/3 costs you something a bit over (a further) £400 (at the time of writing the last Timms on eBay sold for about £540). Note; I have not included a price for my set-up and/or improvement time and materials, and I believe that something like a new Timms wouldn’t need any work on it.

Summary. Price and performance isn’t always virtually a linear relationship. If you’re prepared to put some work in on it and you can accept near 2/3’s of what is (in my experience and estimation) about the best performance possible then you’ll only need to pay about 1/5 of the price.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that the answer lies in where does an ukulele cross the line from improvement in performance to improvement in aesthetics?
Certainly laminate or plastic to solid is improvement. - sound
Plastic to bone is an improvement. - durability
Friction peg to geared peg is an improvement
Fret height and accuracy is an improvement
Composition of materials is an improvement
Overall construction quality is an improvement

But at what point does one leave solid quality and enter bells and whistles?
Some prefer Koa (expensive) others prefer mahogany while others like spruce.

I’ve played inexpensive $100 ukes and modest $500 ukes and there is a difference. And I wonder if playing a $2000 instrument would present an experience that is significantly different, better or more enjoyable than that which I’ve found between $100 and $500.

Be interesting to have the opportunity, but as a serious amateur, I think I would not find the value in either purchase if or simply owning one.
 
.........Because it suits me...

Some interesting comments here, as usual, on this question. To me I don’t see the issue is that of $’s spent on an instrument but one of perceived value. For some it’s almost a matter of faith to spend as little as they can, even if they can afford to spend more and for others, they feel uncomfortable buying an instrument below a certain amount because they don’t believe that they would get the quality they are after.

Ultimately, I guess, we acquire the instrument that suits us because we recognise value in that item.
 
Top Bottom