Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

[SlyFoxx]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

I hate Taylor guitars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good for you.

Me? I've made about 60-70 thousand dollars (since the turn of the century) playing my Taylor (310CE) that cost me a straight trade for my first PRS C22 (10 top).


Life lesson?...it's not the guitar, it's what you do with it.

[tubecrunch]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

I've never walked into somebody's show, sat back and said, "that sounds like a Martin/Taylor/Gibson, etc." my biggest concern when buying an acoustic is how I need it to function. Are you playing bluegrass and need it to be loud as hell? I plug in for ALL of my gigs, so I bought a $500 takimine with great pickup.

[gilaltom3]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

I like both Taylors and Martins for different reasons. My Dad and his good friend (really my second dad) are big Martin guys. The reason they're big Martin guys is because when they're going to go guitar shopping they've got enough money to spend $1500+ on a guitar. In that price range, the Martins are your best bet IMO. However, if you take the budget Martins and the budget Taylors (below $1000) I think Taylors win all day as far as playability, tone, and electronics. However, if you're gonna spend any real money then I'd go with Martin.


I'm cheap so I like those $800 Taylors all day

[Johnny the Kid]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

Taylors sound really bright to me while Martins are much warmer. For acoustic warmth is all i think about besides playability.

[SirJackdeFuzz]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

I was born a Gibson man.

As a teenager in the mid-80's, my biggest acoustic dream was to one day own a J45.
That was the pinnacle of acoustic-guitardom for me.
Nothing was regarded as a better option for me.

And then, one day, while on vacation in Orlando, i picked up a $900.00 'entry level' Martin and strummed it.
Those first three seconds completely changed my opinion of how an acoustic should sound like.
I have since forgotten about my long lasting J45 love, and is now actively looking into a Martin.

Since that day, i have done a lot of research into the Co., their products, and diff models.
I also bought this book : http://www.fretbase.com/blog/2008/12...in-stores-now/ - nice read.

I think it is due to diff manufacturing techniques, but a Martin just sound VERY diff from any other acoustic.
It's a distinctive, 'Martin-sound'. Almost like, 'only a Harley sounds like a Harley' type thing. I can not say that about any other acoustic brand.
By comparison, a J45 now, sounds thin and trebly compared to the all-mighty Martin HD-28V . . . to my ears anyways.

[SirJackdeFuzz]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

They're voiced differently... Taylors have a more modern "hi-fi" sound to them than Martin's "the sound your Grandpa loved - for good reason". Whether it's the sound you're after is up to you.

This is a good description.

I felt that Martin has a more mellow-woody, organic n' truthful sound (through out the entire Martin range) compared to other brands.

The one other acoustic Co that caught my attention, and i played several models since, is Breedlove.
I really like their Cedar top models.

[treyhaislip]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

I was born a Gibson man.

As a teenager in the mid-80's, my biggest acoustic dream was to one day own a J45.
That was the pinnacle of acoustic-guitardom for me.
Nothing was regarded as a better option for me.

And then, one day, while on vacation in Orlando, i picked up a $900.00 'entry level' Martin and strummed it.
Those first three seconds completely changed my opinion of how an acoustic should sound like.
I have since forgotten about my long lasting J45 love, and is now actively looking into a Martin.

Since that day, i have done a lot of research into the Co., their products, and diff models.
I also bought this book : http://www.fretbase.com/blog/2008/12...in-stores-now/ - nice read.

I think it is due to diff manufacturing techniques, but a Martin just sound VERY diff from any other acoustic.
It's a distinctive, 'Martin-sound'. Almost like, 'only a Harley sounds like a Harley' type thing. I can not say that about any other acoustic brand.
By comparison, a J45 now, sounds thin and trebly compared to the all-mighty Martin HD-28V . . . to my ears anyways.

I always loved the Gibson J45 until I owned one...I think the Hummingbird and J45 are the best sounding acoustics when strummed (I prefer all Gibson acoustics for Strumming) but there was something odd about it that I couldn't put my finger on. I returned the J45 (Guitar Center) and got a Gibson Advanced Jumbo that sounded better but still wasn't right.

For the less than half the price of the Gibsons I was able to get two Epiphone Masterbilt (all solid wood, no laminates) one in Rosewood and one in Mahogany...for the price I felt the Masterbilt were better.

I couldn't figure out what was "wrong" with the Gibsons to my ears until I played a friend's aged Martin HD28. I think for acoustics an Ebony fretboard is the best...and the Rosewood sides and back add warmth that is "lost" from a non-Rosewood fretboard that the AJ, J45, and Hummingbird use. I never liked Martins personally, I think it was because some of their necks are very thick and needed the action adjusted...but I just always thought Martins were not all that great--but playing them changed my mind.

So personally, I think the Martin HD28 is the most complete all around acoustic guitar...but if you have that kinda money then I would suggest taking your time playing different guitars with different woods to see what you like. And keep an open mind, you may think you don't like a brand/wood combo but until you try it you really don't know.

[jtougas]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

There is magic in the combination of a rosewood back, spruce top, mahogany neck, and ebony fingerboard.

My personal favorite shape for that recipe is an OM model, as it's a Swiss Army Knife shape - while it's not *perfect* for everything, it does everything *very, very well*, and does fingerstyle perfectly.

Incidentally, this is the recipe for the Martin Eric Clapton Signature model...

[SirJackdeFuzz]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

I always loved the Gibson J45 until I owned one...I think the Hummingbird and J45 are the best sounding acoustics when strummed (I prefer all Gibson acoustics for Strumming) but there was something odd about it that I couldn't put my finger on. I returned the J45 (Guitar Center) and got a Gibson Advanced Jumbo that sounded better but still wasn't right.

For the less than half the price of the Gibsons I was able to get two Epiphone Masterbilt (all solid wood, no laminates) one in Rosewood and one in Mahogany...for the price I felt the Masterbilt were better.

I couldn't figure out what was "wrong" with the Gibsons to my ears until I played a friend's aged Martin HD28. I think for acoustics an Ebony fretboard is the best...and the Rosewood sides and back add warmth that is "lost" from a non-Rosewood fretboard that the AJ, J45, and Hummingbird use. I never liked Martins personally, I think it was because some of their necks are very thick and needed the action adjusted...but I just always thought Martins were not all that great--but playing them changed my mind.

So personally, I think the Martin HD28 is the most complete all around acoustic guitar...but if you have that kinda money then I would suggest taking your time playing different guitars with different woods to see what you like.
And keep an open mind, you may think you don't like a brand/wood combo but until you try it you really don't know.

That is exactly who i discovered the tone of the Breedlove guitars, as well as the carbon made Rainsong guitars.

I picked up a Breedlove because i found the shape and head stock interesting, and the Rainsong, because i never seen one in person. (until then)
The Breedlove sounded REALLY good for a $900.00 guitar, and the Rainsong sounded fantastic, if you think it is not made from wood.

[SirJackdeFuzz]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

There is magic in the combination of a rosewood back, spruce top, mahogany neck, and ebony fingerboard.

My personal favorite shape for that recipe is an OM model, as it's a Swiss Army Knife shape - while it's not *perfect* for everything, it does everything *very, very well*, and does fingerstyle perfectly.

Incidentally, this is the recipe for the Martin Eric Clapton Signature model...

I played an EC sig model about 4 months ago . . . and was surprised at how comfortable it was in my hands/against my body.

And it looks sexy too . . . for a smaller body guitar.

I even took some photos of me sitting down with the EC guitar.
The shop manager thought i was going crazy.
DSLR + massive video style Manfrotto tripod, doing self-timer 'selfies'
Just wanted to show my friends back home what i had the opportunity to play with.

[TeleLubber]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

I own 3 Taylors, a Martin D-28, and a Gibson Hummingbird Pro..

The Taylors are so much easier to play, and very "hi-fi" sounding (as mentioned before) compared to the Martin and Gibson.. they are very user friendly in a live situation, sitting very well in the mix without much fussing around, and I am very impressed with the stock electronics they came with..

I found my Hummingbird to be a bit "boomy" sounding even after messing with EQ, and had trouble getting comfortable in a live situation, tho I love it's acoustic tone sitting at home (my favorite couch guitar)

My Martin is a great slide guitar, and I use it for playing a lot of open & altered tunings, it's tone is very boxy sounding, for lack of a better term.. I find it to be pretty plain vanilla in terms of tone, but I bought it used for next to nothing, and don't regret owning it

[Evan Skopp]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

I think all the brands mentioned in this thread make good guitars and a lot of it is personal taste and a lot of it is "you get what you pay for."

That said, if you have to amplify and you can't be encumbered by a stage mic, then you need a pickup. And if you use a cheap pickup in even the most gorgeous pre-War herringbone, when amplified, it's going to sound like any other cheap acoustic guitar.

[Ayrton]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

I hate Taylor guitars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL... don't sugar coat it man.

[SirJackdeFuzz]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

LOL... don't sugar coat it man.

[Boogie Bill]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

There is magic in the combination of a rosewood back, spruce top, mahogany neck, and ebony fingerboard.

My personal favorite shape for that recipe is an OM model, as it's a Swiss Army Knife shape - while it's not *perfect* for everything, it does everything *very, very well*, and does fingerstyle perfectly.

Incidentally, this is the recipe for the Martin Eric Clapton Signature model...

The Martin EC is a 000 style, not an OM. The 000 has a 24.9" scale; the OM is 25.34". While the OM is indeed a very fine SAK guitar, the lighter tension of the 000 model does indeed make it a superior style for finger-picking, imo.

And there's nothing wrong with finger-picking on a dread, either.

Bill