Taylor 100 and 200 series

[Wayne27]

How come Taylor 100 and 200 series have laminated back and sides while Martin guitars of the same price range have solid back and sides.

[St_Genesius]

Because they can.

[PFDarkside]

How come Taylor 100 and 200 series have laminated back and sides while Martin guitars of the same price range have solid back and sides.

Examples?

Martin does laminated backs/sides too, but they also have the killer 15 series that excludes all appointments in favor for the core solid acoustic construction.

[Mincer]

I think both companies offer a ton of choices in the lower price ranges. I always go for solid woods over electronics or appointments. If it was a guitar for performance, I would spend the money on solid woods and good internal electronics over looks, too.

[Wayne27]

Examples?

Martin does laminated backs/sides too, but they also have the killer 15 series that excludes all appointments in favor for the core solid acoustic construction.

Some examples would be the Martin Road series and GPCPA4 Grand Performance.

[NegativeEase]

There are lots of versions of the Taylors in the 1 and 2s -I think you are just speaking to a few in that store.

-in my experience - if you like that very bright harmonic rich sound of a Taylor then their really isn't anything better comparing to any other brand at the similar price point IMO -No matter what materials or features.

-as their neck profile, fretboard radius, and playability are superior to Martin in most every apples to apples comparison. Martins are typically 1-2 mm skinnier with a bigger radius and more of vintage neck profile like a U or fat oval -whereas Taylors are more of a modern flat oval or C with a wide flat fretboard -almost like the difference between a vintage 50s Fender Tele neck and a 60s Gibson SG.

Taylors play with the ease of an electric -there are lots of people who hate on them, but honestly -they aren't paying attention.

[GuitarStv]

I played a bunch of Martins (D-15s) and Taylors (200 series) in roughly the same price range.

It's less expensive for Taylor to make a three ply laminated back/side than use solid wood. Solid wood requires thicker pieces which results in more waste (thinner pieces you can more efficiently use the wood and produce less waste). Martin makes similar cost cutting measures, but often in different places (the Martins I played had solid wood back and sides but fake ebony fretboards for example). Both were nice sounding and playing guitars, but I found that some of the Taylors sounded a little better to my ears.

So then I directly compared Taylor 214 (laminated b/s) and 214DLX (laminated b/s with different top bracing and finish) , 314 (solid wood b/s), and 414 guitars (solid wood b/s). There wasn't really a 'this is clearly better' among them. They were all different sounding guitars and I liked different models for different stuff. I liked the sound of the standard 214 the least - it had a brightness that I couldn't control especially when playing with a pick. The 214DLX sounded better than the solid wood 314 for the stuff I play. The laminated guitar had a clearer sounding fundamental and responded better to hard strumming, and had a more delicate sound when finger picked. I think that the 414 sounded a tiny bit nicer (something different in the upper mids) than the 214 DLX for both. Unfortunately, Taylor changes the width of the neck on the 300 and up series, going from a 1 11/16ths nut to 1 3/4s. I guess that many folks like this, but it makes them less comfortable to play to me. So I ended up going with a laminated Taylor 214 DLX and have been very happy with it.

What surprised me most was that laminated didn't mean worse. The laminated taylors were WAY nicer than some of the cheaper solid wood guitars I played.

[NegativeEase]

What surprised me most was that laminated didn't mean worse. The laminated taylors were WAY nicer than some of the cheaper solid wood guitars I played.

That's interesting... I think every one of their guitar models sounds great -just some of them are too bright for my tastes. I am certain some of their 7 and 8 series I've played are the best acoustics I've ever played.

I guess this shouldn't surprise us if Taylor has figured out a manufacturing technique to mitigate the sonic differences between solid/laminate etc -as they were the company that revolutionized CNC application to guitar making.

[3'scompany]

I guess this shouldn't surprise us if Taylor has figured out a manufacturing technique to mitigate the sonic differences between solid/laminate etc -as they were the company that revolutionized CNC application to guitar making.

I think we get too hung up on specs and tradition sometimes. I have to remind myself that my ES-335, which I love dearly, is a plywood guitar

[NegativeEase]

I think we get too hung up on specs and tradition sometimes. I have to remind myself that my ES-335, which I love dearly, is a plywood guitar

So true. The only reason wood is a preferred material in the first place is it's density and imperfection -there is no reason a synthetic material process eventually can't be created that mimics the randomness of wood density from growth ring to growth enough to work for what a human hears.

[Mincer]

I think we get too hung up on specs and tradition sometimes. I have to remind myself that my ES-335, which I love dearly, is a plywood guitar

Indeed it is, so is an ES-175, which is the quintessential jazz archtop. It sounds more 'jazzy' to me than something with a completely carved top, too. Tradition in the guitar world is what drives everything, for better or worse.

[devastone]

I've played Rainsongs before, they play and sound great, a bit pricey though.

I'm thinking about a Taylor 214ce, the lam back and sides don't bother me, the soundboard/top is the most important piece of wood and it is solid spruce on the base models.

[St_Genesius]

I have a bottom-of-barrel Taylor that I like well enough that I haven't bought another acoustic in literally 20 years.

If I ever do go shopping for one again, it's hard to imagine me choosing a different brand.