Acoustic guitars with arch backs

[Wayne27]

Do arch backs of acoustic guitars with laminated back and sides help enhance the tone and compensate the lack of resonance of laminated back and sides?

Example: Taylor 200 series.

 

[GuitarStv]

I tried out several Taylor 214 series guitars and directly compared them to 414s. The 214s on average seem to have slightly longer sustain and a slightly brighter tone than 400 series guitars. They were about the same volume from what I could tell (although initially I thought that the 214 was louder . . . probably due to the slightly brighter/more forward sound). Whether this was due to the arch back or the laminate sides though, I've got no idea.

FWIW, I preferred the sound of the 214 and it's the one I bought.

 

[AniML]

I own a Taylor 114 (no cutaway or electronics) and a 314ce. The 114 is louder and punchier with far more midrange but less articulate, less nuanced, and has less sparkle than the 314. Think of it like a very efficient but somewhat lower end speaker vs one not as efficient, but more detailed and 3d sounding.

 

[St_Genesius]

I don't know if arched backs do anything, but Taylor has certainly been convinced they do for over 20 years now, which is about as good an endorsement as you're likely to find.

FWIW, I'm still pounding away at a first-gen Big Baby I bought new in 2001. It beat out everything in the store under $1,500 and I haven't bought another acoustic since.