Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

[NegativeEase]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

Are you trolling at this point?

Play guitars with laminated back/sides and solid wood. If you can’t hear it, I’m not sure what to say. Yes, the top is most important but I played an absolute ton of guitars before I bought my acoustic and it seemed pretty apparent to me. Of course, one always has to ask if the trade off is worth it. For me it was, I can see the solid top/lam back and sides being the sweet spot for a lot of players.m

Also, I’d say Taylors probably do the best with the laminate back and sides, the 100/200 still have that Taylor sound.

The massive benefit of laminated back and sides is durability especially as it relates to humidity/temperature fluctuations. I have to treat my Martin like an infant to protect from cracks/warps, etc. where my brother doesn’t even humidify his and he’s had no issues. Same goes for having kids around, the laminated back/sides should be far more durable than solid.

The Taylor 100/200 series are brilliant sounding and great values, The Martin's don't become competitive in sound and value to a Taylor until the at least 1500.00 range IMO -more often more.

I think the Taylor 3 series is about the perfect blend of sound, value, and guitar you will never need to replace.

I think the lower and mid end Breedloves have close to the value proposition of Taylors in the 400-700 range.

for total value under 500.00 -I'd say Yamaha and Seagulls are the ones to look at, Seagulls headstock (while functionally more correct) makes me want to murder though.

Oh, and Guild -they are starting to put out some great stuff again.

 

[GuitarStv]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

This is the same reason why I'm against tonewood. If it plays well, has good volume, and sounds nice, why would you give a rat's ass what it's made of?

When buying an acoustic, make sure you play a bunch of them before you even look at the price tag. You may find one that you like above the rest for half the price that you never would have even considered to pickup if you saw the price or wood composition.

Wood makes a difference in how a guitar sounds.

On an electric guitar, the electronics radically shape the sound of a guitar so I'd argue that it doesn't matter as much. On an acoustic wood is very important. A spruce top sounds very reliably different (much brighter/less woody) than a mahogany top. Rosewood back and sides sound very different than mahogany (deeper/brighter for the former, again more woody for the latter). It's not subtle at all, and I'm pretty sure that any of us could tell the difference in a blindfold test. (Neck wood, or fretboard wood I'm less sure about this.)

Laminated sides and back can sound good. I would want to try the Taylor 214 (laminated) against a 414 (solid) to see if there's significant sound difference between them before buying the former though. The 414 was well out of my budget so I didn't try it in the shop.

 

[GuitarStv]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

For $1000 -1500 you can get a nice solid rosewood and solid spruce Blueridge.

These look like great guitars on paper! Does anyone know a shop I could try Blueridge guitars out in Toronto, Canada? You can order them online but I'd never buy a guitar without being able to play it first.

 

[Artie]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

Hey Steve. Have you also considered a Seagull? Great guitars, and I believe they're made in your neighborhood. One of the things I love about them is the shape of the headstock which does an almost perfect straight string-pull through the nut. A Seagull will be my next acoustic. (My luthier friend has one, so I have got to play one.)



I believe they're distributed through Godin.

 

[GuitarStv]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

Hey Steve. Have you also considered a Seagull? Great guitars, and I believe they're made in your neighborhood. One of the things I love about them is the shape of the headstock which does an almost perfect straight string-pull through the nut. A Seagull will be my next acoustic. (My luthier friend has one, so I have got to play one.)

View attachment 100234

Yeah, I tried an S series and SWS Maritime. They're nice guitars (not a fan of the headstock shape, but could probably get used to it), but the nut width really bugged me. It felt too wide or something.

 

[Artie]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

I agree in one respect. I'm not crazy about the cosmetics, but I love the engineering.

 

[Mincer]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

My luthier friend, who does both Taylor and Martin warranty work, says "My favorite guitar is a Martin that plays like a Taylor." Good sound vs good setup?

I've heard tis before...and I bet Martin has. So why aren't their setups so good? Tradition?

 

[Artie]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

Arrogance? :dunno:

 

[JB_From_Hell]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

From a bluegrass flat-picker’s perspective, they want a loud guitar that can be heard over a ton of louder instruments all stepping on each other’s toes sonically. You don’t get that from a guitar that’s setup to play like an electric.

 

[NegativeEase]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

I've heard tis before...and I bet Martin has. So why aren't their setups so good? Tradition?

Before you consider the setup portion, Taylors have a more comfortable sort of D tapered neck and flatter modern fretboard -basically more modern developed feel, Martins tend to have a chunkier traditional feel -although Martin has certainly brought out guitars to combat this. Martin also uses more traditional machine heads often, which are made by Gotoh stamped "Martin" whereas Taylor uses Grovers, which are the best feeling tuners known to man in my opinion (Gotohs are great but they are building what Martin wants). Also, Taylor necks at the nut are a little wider on average (only by 1mm lol) which is better for me.

On average -It's sort of like Martin focuses more of a guitar made for chords and strumming with the more vintage feel and radius/profile/nut width and Taylor makes more of a flatpickin' travis picking shredding type modern acoustic. Sort of like comparing a late 50s Strat to a late 50s LP Special

This is of course a generalization, but it holds true for most comparisons.

Neither approach is wrong, it's just Taylor has really made guitars that more reflect what people are needing today (sound familiar?), and that snuck up on Martin in the last 2 decades. Martin has in recent years tried to modernize with their models though.

also Taylor revolutionize the neck joint technique and uses CNC (Martin does now too, as does everybody) to take a massive amount of traditional labor out of the guitar, so traditionally a Taylor and Martin at the same price point would mean, the Taylor had higher quality materials and less labor involved whereas the Martin had more Labor and lesser materials -so as long as the QC process at Taylor was good -you tended to get more value from a Taylor. Or if you wanted the same materials in the Taylor in your Martin you would pay another 500 or so bucks higher.

Also, Taylor has crazy good customer service which really helped them grow.

Now as I say all this, Martin has really reacted to Taylor's success and modernized to build a better value guitar at student, and giggers price points -AND has upped their customer service too -they even have guitar reps at shows sometimes now.

You can't really lose with either choice IMO.

I just wish Gibson J series acoustics could get competitive too.

 

[Artie]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

Also, Taylor has crazy good customer service which really helped them grow.

Ditto to this. In all the years I've known my favorite local mom-'n-pop Martin/Taylor dealer, I've been to two Taylor shows. Never seen a Martin show. Those folks are friendly and informative. And they offer killer deals at the show. Cool people. I'm not saying that Martin folks aren't. Just never met them.

 

[AniML]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

Yeah, I tried an S series and SWS Maritime. They're nice guitars (not a fan of the headstock shape, but could probably get used to it), but the nut width really bugged me. It felt too wide or something.

I had an S6 a few years back. I loved everything about it (even electrified it) but the neck width was the reason I sold it. The Taylor 314 is going to have 1 3/4" nut where the lower models are 11/16.

I have had a 114, non cut away, non electric for several years and love it. I recently got a Martin 000-15M recently and it is a fun and very playable guitar for a little over $1000. I took the saddle down a few 32nds on each and they both have great action and tone.

Both are smaller bodies. The Taylor being the larger of the pair, projects a bit more with a modestly deep tone. I've played a number of 2xx and 3xx models, and the ones I like best seem to be the individual instrument vs the position in the model lineup, though I was consistently impressed with the 214 DLX rosewood.

The Martin while not nearly as loud, has a sweeter more chimey and more complex tone that I love. And although I have nothing against a good sounding laminate like my Taylor, the Martin has much more of a sound and feel of a fine instrument. The 114 weighs over 5lbs, the 15M weights under 4lbs. Ideally the Martin would be a bit larger / voluminous (like the size of the Taylor x14, IMO, close to perfect dimensions), which I guess is the 15SM model, but its short scale and a few hundred more.

 

[arten]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

Do yourself a huge favour and check out the Taylor academy series:

https://youtu.be/gxysZzzCYL4

I have the a12e and it’s the nicest and most value for money acoustic I’ve ever owned! This one will never ever leave me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ehdwuld]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

The Martin has a 25.6 inch scale
The Taylor is 24.8 I think
This makes an incredible difference in playability

 

[GuitarStv]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

The Martin has a 25.6 inch scale
The Taylor is 24.8 I think
This makes an incredible difference in playability

The Taylor is 25.5 and Martin is 25.4. Honestly, I couldn't notice much difference between them in scale length but the Taylor (with slightly longer length) was easier to play. Action was similar on both guitars, so maybe it's the frets?

 

[ehdwuld]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

Oh ok
I seem to remember some of the Taylor guitars being 24.87 when I was looking for a short scale acoustic some years ago

I may have gotten confused with a different manufacturer

My cheap Epiphone Hummingbird has a 24.75
And it is very nice

 

[plasticscouse]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

I tried the Taylor 214 recently and I was very impressed. I didn’t try the d16, but I did try other Martins. I preferred the Taylor, it was better to my ear and played better new without a setup.

I. Terms of spec Taylor has laminated back & sides yes, but it has real ebony board and bridge.

The Martin has Richlite board & bridge but solid back & sides.

I’d have had the Taylor over ant Martin in that price point. The Taylor wasn’t there so I bought a Gibson J45 Studio instead.

 

[GuitarDoc]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

I love the sound of a good Martin, but I have to admit that I am a real Taylor fan. With age and use, the Taylor gets a richer, fuller tone.

 

[GuitarStv]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

So . . . in answer to the question . . . Taylor:

I've tried a ridiculous number of acoustic guitars in four different shops now. This was definitely the one . . . a Taylor 214ce SB-DLX. Spruce top, laminated rosewood back/sides/headstock, ebony fingerboard and bridge, and plastic bridge pins that are about to be swapped out for some ebony ones. (I've made my peace with the laminate back/sides. It sounds head and shoulders better than a bunch of solid wood guitars that I played.) The neck feels great, action is incredible, it's the first acoustic I've owned with a cutaway which is nice.

This guitar sounds awesome! Whatever the hell an 'Expression System II' is, it's actually not bad . . . way better than some of the crappy acoustic piezo stuff I've tried over the years. Mostly I was interested in unplugged sound though. Of the sixteen or so Taylor 214s that I played, the one I got was the bass heaviest. By which I mean, it doesn't feel like someone has vacuumed up all of the bass from the guitar and just left a top-endy sparkle. It's still not as boomy as a dreadnought, but there's some body that was missing in the others. It's currently strung with a custom light set of .11s (same as my electrics ) and I'll definitely be going up a gauge in the future. Not sure if I should just move to regular light .12s or a medium/light (medium EAD and light GBe) to try and coax a bit more bass out of her. Anyone have recommendations?

Only negative is that it's got that ugly burst ruining a perfectly good spruce top . . . but I don't have to look at it when I'm playing it.




Tried a bunch of other brands of guitars, but kept coming back to the wall of Martins . . . and eventually decided that I didn't like the warm sounds I was getting from the Martin D16s and D18s. There's some missing zing/treble that I'm used to from my old acoustic that they don't have. They sound too woody (which I think is the mahogany). The D28 that I played was a tone monster though and felt very familiar (which makes sense, it's what my old guitar was supposed to be a clone of), but way, way, way out of my price range. And at the price they want for it I'd be afraid to leave it out of the case.

So, on to Taylors:

Tried a Taylor 314, 414, 614, 814 . . . and they sound nice. (Particularly a cedar top, rosewood sides/back 414 that sounded incredible!) But I didn't spend too much time with them. It turns out I hate every Taylor that's higher than the 200 series, because although they look and sound lovely the neck is ****ed up. All of them feel too damned big in my hands. Not like filling my hand too much, but too wide. The 214s and 114s have a much more comfortable neck, but also mostly seem to have a sound that I don't like. Too zingy/high pitched. They uniformly play great though - have to be one of the most consistent guitar makers out there. The regular 214ce's with Koa back and sides are noticeably bass deficient for the kind of flatpicking I like to do. The 214ce DLX with copafera sides and back was better, but still a bit weak in bass. Laminate or not, the ones with rosewood sounded more balanced (ie not so damned bright) to my ears as the others.


Hopefully I won't have to do this again for at least another 20 odd years.

 

[GuitarStv]

Re: Buying a nice acoustic - Taylor vs. Martin

Also, the new Taylor smells nice. Maybe not as nice as a martin, but pretty good.