is consistency a measure outside of quality?

OGG said:
Yeah.

I'm not sure I follow the logic in blaming the consumer.

Not to say that some peoples expectations aren't too high, but when a manufacturer advertises their products to be premium, professional grade instruments, the consumer should not have to sift through several examples to find one without noticeable and significant flaws.

Even worse, as has recently been discussed here, is to shell out a large sum of cash on a "high end" guitar, only to have a large chunk of the finish separate itself from the wood.

It's not that this happened, things like that are just part of the deal. It's that the buyer had to wait months while jumping through hoops to get a fair resolution from the manufacturer.

That is a measure of quality that is far too overlooked. Part of providing a quality product, is standing behind that product when it fails to deliver. Too many companies instead though, choose to take the position that their products are above reproach and refuse to acknowledge that they sometimes fail.
Click to expand...

the onus is on the consumer to be their own quality control department. just because it shouldn't be that way doesn't mean it isn't. that said, i agree. the consumer shouldn't have to sift through several examples to find one without flaws. and i extend that to minor flaws. that consumers have accepted it tells the manufacturers they don't have to be better. that's the wrong message to send. hence, the blame on the consumer.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
the onus is on the consumer to be their own quality control department. just because it shouldn't be that way doesn't mean it isn't. that said, i agree. the consumer shouldn't have to sift through several examples to find one without flaws. and i extend that to minor flaws. that consumers have accepted it tells the manufacturers they don't have to be better. that's the wrong message to send. hence, the blame on the consumer.
Click to expand...

Agreed, that is a very real phenomenon, one that has many thorns.

When consumers revolt by shopping other brands, the manufacturer responds by cutting even more corners in an attempt to maintain profitability in the face of declining sales.

Meanwhile, the marketing department stays hard at work convincing consumers that in order to stay hip, they need these inferior products.

Can we, the consumer ever win such a battle?
 
OGG said:
Not to say that some peoples expectations aren't too high, but when a manufacturer advertises their products to be premium, professional grade instruments, the consumer should not have to sift through several examples to find one without noticeable and significant flaws.

Even worse, as has recently been discussed here, is to shell out a large sum of cash on a "high end" guitar, only to have a large chunk of the finish separate itself from the wood.

It's not that this happened, things like that are just part of the deal. It's that the buyer had to wait months while jumping through hoops to get a fair resolution from the manufacturer.
Click to expand...

This particular incident caused me to refuse to ever buy anything new from that manufacturer. I still don't consider the final outcome totally fair -- just better than the complete rip-off the manufacturer wanted to commit.

Tralfaz said:
What are people learning these days in college when they get their useless business degrees?
Click to expand...

As the holder of a useless business degree, I'll say it's a combination of marketing strategy and economics. As long as a company can make a profit putting out a shoddy product or having poor service, there is no incentive to do otherwise. Some companies will market themselves as making a good product or having great service and actually do it. Some will market themselves as having a good product and being a prestigious brand while a tiny portion of informed people know better. It's not just guitars -- it happens in many, many areas. Moreover, consumers often -- and very knowingly -- choose prestige over practicality.
 
I'm one that doesn't believe that consistency (as it pertains to guitar production) can really exist in an automated environment, i.e., factory. I think maybe Hamer came the closest but they had a pretty small operation. In the old days, lutes and violins were works of art (not cosmetically speaking) requiring countless hours of skilled labor. I think many boutique builders do a better job in the consistency dept. but at a premium. Course I'm one that also believes that wood matters. But I'm not one to point any fingers either because it's a neglected miracle what can be had for so little today. I'm happy enough to look for the diamonds in the rough.
 
Last edited:
"Quality" without consistency is about as bad as consistency without quality. You need consistency to make the "quality" worth anything, but you also need to be able to produce quality work in the first place.
 
Last edited:
It really depends on your definition of quality.

If one can achieve Quality once in several attempts. One will still have achieved Quality.
One has not achieved consistency. Nor has one achieved quality control.
 
SColfax said:
I totally agree. The only thing that seems to be an almost uncontrollable variable is the weight of the wood.

Also, if you listen to Steve Vai, he seems to think each piece of wood is more or less tuned to a certain frequency, and if the neck and body are tuned the same they work better together. Not sure how scientific that is, but it's really hard for me to discount his opinion.
Click to expand...

This is a guy who had to stuff his tremolo cavity because he can hear the springs shake. His ears are bionic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top