[cpenner461]

Second the vote for Seagull. I'm pretty sure they're all made with solid tops, but are still affordable (last time I looked starting in the $300 range. I think you need a "good enough" guitar that will stay in tune properly and sound decent, but that doesn't need to be a $2000 guitar. There are a bunch of big brands that fit this, but I think the Seagulls are some of the ones that don't feel cheap while actually being affordable.

EDIT: for those not aware, a solid top is preferred to a plywood top for tonal quality. Most of the cheaper guitars use a plywood top. That said, a lot of plywood tops sound pretty good these days, but I tend to be a purist in these sorts of things so greatly prefer the solid tops. :)

[bmelton]

Completely agreed. My first acoustic was a "made in Cambodia" Fender that wasn't horrible, but really didn't compare well to pretty much any other guitar of any quality.

My second purchase was aiming for something with a solid top, and the tonal quality was apparent from the very first note I played.

My third purchase was aimed at getting a solid body guitar, which is trickier because there isn't necessarily a noticeable difference between a guitar with a laminate body and one with a solid body, though you can certainly find guitars that sound different, neither is clearly better (by sound) on a new guitar.

That said, as I'm told, the tone of a solid body guitar will age, like wine, and sound better and better over time, so long as it's taken care of. A laminate will, at best, stay the same, and more likely will dull over time.

This (and nostalgia, history, etc.) is the reason old, good guitars tend to fetch so much money, because they were likely made from great stock to begin with, and have since aged to sound even better. (I say with only anecdotal evidence).