I think what junhao is trying to say is..
In theory, ignoring aesthetics, material quality, and assuming good build quality in terms of consistency, a knock off can sound great, although impossible to sound the same as the original, even in theory.
Imagine I buy a car chassis from the junkyard. It's falling apart. I rework the framework with kitchen knives that have been melted down and mixed with some other cheap stuff to make it as strong as steel. It's basically made of crap, but after a paintjob (let's keep the story simple), it now looks like a mercedes. It runs like a merc, it handles like one or maybe even better. Just that we all know it's made from crap.
That's what I believe he's trying to say. Just because it's not the original, doesn't mean it has to be bad or worse. Think Marshall from Fender. I stress though, THIS IS IN THEORY.
In PRACTICE, especially for craftsman-oriented products, guitars like these are cheap for a reason. In terms of a guitar, where subtleties are everything, you are not going to get a "mercedes" from a "crap chassis" that has been overhauled with more crap. A subtle variation in the proverbial mould could kill the entire batch so unless they have the exact "mould" from the respective companies... yea.. not going to happen.
Think of a rifle with a curved barrel at say 0.01deg from start to end (the number is arbitrary), at 100m, it's probably going to miss the target.
In practice, if they were a good enough knock off to actually sound good, they would have started their own line of guitars.
So yea, try not to promote rip-offs. It confuses people. Including me. haha
In theory, ignoring aesthetics, material quality, and assuming good build quality in terms of consistency, a knock off can sound great, although impossible to sound the same as the original, even in theory.
Imagine I buy a car chassis from the junkyard. It's falling apart. I rework the framework with kitchen knives that have been melted down and mixed with some other cheap stuff to make it as strong as steel. It's basically made of crap, but after a paintjob (let's keep the story simple), it now looks like a mercedes. It runs like a merc, it handles like one or maybe even better. Just that we all know it's made from crap.
That's what I believe he's trying to say. Just because it's not the original, doesn't mean it has to be bad or worse. Think Marshall from Fender. I stress though, THIS IS IN THEORY.
In PRACTICE, especially for craftsman-oriented products, guitars like these are cheap for a reason. In terms of a guitar, where subtleties are everything, you are not going to get a "mercedes" from a "crap chassis" that has been overhauled with more crap. A subtle variation in the proverbial mould could kill the entire batch so unless they have the exact "mould" from the respective companies... yea.. not going to happen.
Think of a rifle with a curved barrel at say 0.01deg from start to end (the number is arbitrary), at 100m, it's probably going to miss the target.
In practice, if they were a good enough knock off to actually sound good, they would have started their own line of guitars.
So yea, try not to promote rip-offs. It confuses people. Including me. haha
