I was just trying to add that “vintage” is not necessarily short-hand for incredibly, out-of-this-world expensive! And that a great many cheaper, old guitars can both play and sound incredible.
I was never into acoustics to a bigger extent than if I felt a piece of music needed it, I’d add it. All about recognizability of a certain type of sound to convey a certain type of atmosphere, nothing more. Same with horns, strings and organ. But I do care about timbre. If you feel an old acoustic has more of a freq-range than a new one, I’ll believe you.
All good. It’s not more frequency range; as I have heard from acoustician/guitar geeks, it’s more “cut” - more of the energy is allocated to the desirable frequencies, and less to the undesirable ones. So the instrument can sound a bit more focused and it can cut through a mix better. Broken in, in a good way.
ETA: And yes, there are great values out there. When my son was good enough to warrant a better acoustic, we ended up at Steve’s Trading Post in Santa Cruz. He fell in love with a '50’s Harmony archtop for $225. Still his main strummer - he named it Naoko after a favorite book character.
Ah okay, so acoustic filtering of some sort. I’ve never heard of it, but I’ve never been all that interested in acoustic guitars. My main exposure has mostly been that annoying dude at who sits in the kitchen at parties, who always plays some trite folk song on the guitar accompanied by 90’ies techno from the stereo. I really like good songs played well in the right environment though.
Electro-acoustic, electric and electronic is more my thing, I guess.
And that a great many cheaper, old guitars can both play and sound incredible.