I've put Martin M600s on the Style 2 since I made this video, so now both have the same strings. They still have a very different sound, but I think that's as much due to the 30 or 40 year age difference as anything else. The Style 2 is a lot lighter and resonates a bit more.
there's more to the higher end Martins than just binding and inlays. They were made with higher grade materials and built by the master builders. S0s were mass produced by the less experienced builders. I have an S0 that is very bright and punchy, it compares well to my 2K. I have a 3M and it's obviously a much better instrument, I get that impression as soon as I pick it up. The 3M isn't as loud, but has smoother more balanced tone, which I would expect from a higher end instrument.
@UkeAbuse A guy I know has a '40s 3M which I've played, but it is really dull sounding (he isn't a ukelele player, just has it hanging on his wall, and it has VERY old strings). My Style 1 is sounding a lot better now than it did when I first got it. It's the one I play the most now. The Style 2 is still louder, but I think when I next change strings (which will be soon) I'll put on the same brand I have on the Style 1. I didn't like them at first, but really do now. I'll post an update!
@UkeAbuse you can buy perfect sopran ukuleles for 900 dollar. is the sound of a martin so special that you should invest more??? i never played one. in europe we dont really have high end ukuleles...
but a "big island special uke" is already great.... i couldnt realy imagine that you have to pay thousands more ?
@norich111 This is a matter of opinion. I highly prefer Vintage Martins over anything else. The sound, feel, vibe, IMO there's no match. I have 8, one is a 40s Martin S0 that sat in the attic of a Hawaii residence for several years - NOTHING comes close to the tone it puts out, NOTHING. My opinion is that there is no uke that can be built today that can compete with a well aged vintage Martin. So *YES* they really are worth it IMO. However, I can enjoy myself playing ANY Uke!
I will take them both :) I think they both sound great, and I think much of the difference in the sound is due to using the Martin strings as opposed to the Aquilas. Great job with the comparison. And if you get tired of either.............
@shrink9 I agree, I think. The Style 2 is a lot "punchier", but in person, it has a MUCH better low-end than the Style 1. I don't know how much there is to the "opening up" theory (I kind of believe it in an un-quantifiable way, lol), but it almost seems as if the style 1 hasn't "found its voice" yet. The 2 has certainly been played a LOT more.
I've put Martin M600s on the Style 2 since I made this video, so now both have the same strings. They still have a very different sound, but I think that's as much due to the 30 or 40 year age difference as anything else. The Style 2 is a lot lighter and resonates a bit more.
ukecycle 11 months ago
HI, you may use same type of Martin strings to compare both. Don't use aquila that can clearly test their sound.
ckl862 11 months ago
there's more to the higher end Martins than just binding and inlays. They were made with higher grade materials and built by the master builders. S0s were mass produced by the less experienced builders. I have an S0 that is very bright and punchy, it compares well to my 2K. I have a 3M and it's obviously a much better instrument, I get that impression as soon as I pick it up. The 3M isn't as loud, but has smoother more balanced tone, which I would expect from a higher end instrument.
UkeAbuse 1 year ago
@UkeAbuse A guy I know has a '40s 3M which I've played, but it is really dull sounding (he isn't a ukelele player, just has it hanging on his wall, and it has VERY old strings). My Style 1 is sounding a lot better now than it did when I first got it. It's the one I play the most now. The Style 2 is still louder, but I think when I next change strings (which will be soon) I'll put on the same brand I have on the Style 1. I didn't like them at first, but really do now. I'll post an update!
ukecycle 1 year ago
@UkeAbuse you can buy perfect sopran ukuleles for 900 dollar. is the sound of a martin so special that you should invest more??? i never played one. in europe we dont really have high end ukuleles...
but a "big island special uke" is already great.... i couldnt realy imagine that you have to pay thousands more ?
norich111 6 months ago
@norich111 This is a matter of opinion. I highly prefer Vintage Martins over anything else. The sound, feel, vibe, IMO there's no match. I have 8, one is a 40s Martin S0 that sat in the attic of a Hawaii residence for several years - NOTHING comes close to the tone it puts out, NOTHING. My opinion is that there is no uke that can be built today that can compete with a well aged vintage Martin. So *YES* they really are worth it IMO. However, I can enjoy myself playing ANY Uke!
UkeAbuse 6 months ago
I can hear the chimey difference you are talking about. I am starting my own string test. Quite the pipe collection!
UkesterBrown 1 year ago
I will take them both :) I think they both sound great, and I think much of the difference in the sound is due to using the Martin strings as opposed to the Aquilas. Great job with the comparison. And if you get tired of either.............
pfrogner 1 year ago
The style 2 sounds much brighter to my ear while the style 1 sounds warmer. Both of them sound wonderful in their own right, however!
shrink9 1 year ago
@shrink9 I agree, I think. The Style 2 is a lot "punchier", but in person, it has a MUCH better low-end than the Style 1. I don't know how much there is to the "opening up" theory (I kind of believe it in an un-quantifiable way, lol), but it almost seems as if the style 1 hasn't "found its voice" yet. The 2 has certainly been played a LOT more.
ukecycle 1 year ago