Now if the price distinction had been 1000 and 500 I'd say quality differences could be hit or miss. Even then that's the difference between a Martin and a nice Ovation, I guarantee you the Martin feels and sounds better. You can get a good Fender acoustic for $500 that will feel and sound really good, maybe that comes down to taste. But a $100 guitar? It's a children's toy guaranteed.
And it says way better as well as absolutely.
Acoustics: the rule is more likely to apply, I will grant you that.
But playability is about setup. Treat a cheap guitar to the same level of setup as you treat an expensive one and the gap could disappear.
Electrics? ehhh. A typical (non-specialist) $1000 electric guitar is a waste of at least $700, and everyone who has bought more than one in the last decade knows it.
Better, almost certainly (I have played a terrible $1000 guitar -- it was a Gretsch and if you have played guitars you know what I mean by this).
But that isn't what the comment I am replying to is saying.
It says absolutely and way better.
And that just isn't supported by evidence if you ask me.
Not least on the playability: if you treat the $100 guitar to the same setup as a $1000 guitar, you may well get an extremely similar experience.
$100 guitars, particularly the ones from Aeirsi, can be extremely good.
OK so the gap between $100 and $1000 is much bigger with acoustic guitars, as you'd expect. (That is if we stipulate there is much of a $100 acoustic guitar market. Can't be many).
But a $100-ish Encore Strat clone in the right hands? not so much.
And it's especially true of lap steel guitars, IMO. Some of the best ones are cheap, some expensive ones are terrible, and the 10x price multiplier adds less than you'd expect.
Nope. Not absolutely. Not even close.