Recording King RO-16

Please be fore-warned: I have only owned this guitar for a few days, but with the dearth of information about Recording King guitars out there, I felt like I had to speak up ASAP. If my opinion changes, I'll be sure to write about that, too.

This is not your father's -- or John Fahey's -- Recording King guitar. It is made by a new company that is trying to emulate RK's original goal of making low-cost instruments with the tonal qualities, and even some of the "luxury" fittings, of much more expensive guitars. They are designed in the U.S., and mine at least, was made in China. The RO-16 has s a OOO-style body, a solid Engelman spruce top (glossy finish, same as the rest of the guitar), mahogany back and sides (probably laminated), mahogany neck, and rosewood bridge and fretboard. Headstock inlay: mother of pearl "Damask" design, fret inlay: abalone snowflake, rosette: "vintage " black and white. It has a truss rod and allen wrench to turn it, but no pick guard.

The scale length is 24.9", depth is 4", body length 19.5". There are 20 nickel frets. The tuners are of a vintage, closed-back style, and of unknown origin. I don't have much knowlege of tuners, but my impression is that these are pretty cheap. Getting an exact tune, even using my Korg chromatic, takes a little patience. The nut is bone, and importantly for me, 1-3/4" wide.

Let me just stop and emphasize that point. This is a new, wide-nut acoustic that can be purchased at several olaces online for less than $275.00. I looked long and hard for something like this, and found nothing for less than around $350 -- until I discovered the RO-16.

As a general observation, this guitar is obviously modeled after Martin's version of the 000-body. It is the exact size and shape of my Martin SWOMGT, and it's lines, simplicity -- even the shape of the headstock -- display its affinity with Martin's aesthetic.

I can find no cosmetic or other defects at all, except for the tiny missing flake of wood on the fret board (about 1.5 x 1.5 mm) that saved me an additional $115.00 off of the original asking price of $262.00). It seems well-made, very solid, and came from the factory requiring only a small tweak of the truss rod to straighten the neck and lower the action.

The grain of the wood is beautiful, but I'm not crazy about the stain used on the mahogany. It's a little too dark for my taste, and has a purplish cast that make it almost look like the color of rosewood in some lights. It's handsome enough, just not my idea of what mahogany should look like.

I have been finger-picking for over 40 years, first on a nylon-stringed classical, then switched late in life to the Martin OM. I bought the RK RO-16 as a second, practice guitar, because I have recently started playing in an open-D tuning, and didn't look forward to re-tuning my guitar 10 times a day. I also have big hands, and I've learned that the extra 1/16" of nut width over the standard 1-11/16" is essential for me. I have played other inexpensive, better-sounding-than-you-would- expect guitars (I've owned two Washburns -- the DK20T and the F10S), but the RO-16 is by far the best. The sound is loud and clear, with good balance across the strings, as you would expect from the 000-body. The mahogany gives it depth, and a solid bass, but it's not at all boomy, like a dreadnought hog. Individual notes ring out nicely, and yet there is enough sustain to provide fullness and power when you strum. The sound isn't as rich, warm or mellow as my cherry-wood Martin, but at 1/9 the cost, who would expect it to be? Simply put, the RO-16 would be a great-sounding guitar at more than twice the price.

I did need to straighten the neck -- by tightening the truss rod less than a quarter-turn -- to lower the action, but everything else is fine from a technical point of view. The spruce top isn't as nicely bookmatched as I would expect from a more expensive guitar, and the grain looks fairly wide to me (I've read that this can effect tone negatively), but neither observation rises to the level of an actual complaint for me.

Although the tuners work well enough, I'll probably invest another $50 or so, and install some better machines; the installed set makes it just hard enough to make the extra cost acceptable.

Having played the RK for only a few days, it's hard to judge durability, etc., but the guitar feels solid as a rock, and all the fittings that you count on not having to worry abput -- like strap buttons, tuners, and other hardware shows every sign of good workmanship and materials. Thefinish is fine -- uniformly glossy, and of a good thickness. Bandings, inlays, etc. are are perfectly fitted, although the abalone snowflake fret markers are too dark (or not reflective enough?) to easily see where you are on the neck. I'm learning to use the little white dots on the edge of the neck...

So maybe she's not the prettiest girl on the block, but she's definitely the one you want as a reliable, life-long friend.

No experience with Customer Support at all. The warranty is for the life of the instrument.

I bought this guitar after making a mistake with the Washburn F10S I mentioned above. I persuaded myself that it had a wide nut (the Musician's Friend online information is a little misleading on this point), and bought it for $229.00. It sounds fine for the price (but not nearly as nice as the RK), but the 1-11/16" nut caused me to return it. I wish I had persevered in what I eventually concluded was a vain search -- for that wide-nut guitar for less than $300.00. I wish I had known about Recording King guitars; it is the perfect guitar for my requirement: a low-cost, good sounding guitar with a 1-3/4" nut, and I recommend it highly to anyone with similar needs. Given the cost, and in spite of the few reservations noted above, I give the RO-16 a 10, truly a "fantastic value"..