Difference between Taylor and Martin acoustics?

[Gearjoneser]

Re: Difference between Taylor and Martin acoustics?

I'm always surprised at how bad the setups are on new guitars....just about all of them.

Sometime when you have some time to kill, go into a music store with all of the name brand acoustics, and play as many as you can. If you can set aside the fact that they're all in need of a final setup, and just listen to the tone of the ones with fairly fresh strings, it'll tell you what you really prefer.

I've done that everytime I go into a good acoustic room, and it really shows you the differences between brands. I wouldn't say any are the best, because I can find good ones in any brand, but I think I gravitate toward Martin in general, but really fall in love with a few Gibsons and Taylors once in awhile. Surprisingly, I've never owned a Gibson acoustic, but I may go that route next time. I needs me a jumbo.

 

[Bludave]

Re: Difference between Taylor and Martin acoustics?

I would go case by case, but in general, I don't think that a Taylor can't beat a high quality Martin.

Because of the way they're built, some Martins require breaking in, but sound matures after a while. A lot of Martins are built with heavier bracing, which means that they can handle heavier strings.

I don't know if that last point is true for the lower end models though.

ALL Acoustic guitars require a break in period. If they are solid wood construction the wood has to vibrate so it "opens up". Depending on the woods, the player who is playing it and how often it is being played. This break in period could be as little as a few months to a year, and will continue to sound better as time goes on. IMHO thats why a guitar that has been played by a real player will sound better over time than someone who does not play as well. The guitar will respond to what and who is playing it. I never realized this myself until I had the oppurtunity to play Tony Matolas L5. For those of you who don't know him, he was the guitarist for the CBS orhestra for about 20 years. He played this particular L5 for about 5 or 6 hours a day 5 days a week. He was a great all arond big band type of player and basically defined the conept of Chord melody. This L5 is without question the best sounding acoustic archtop I ever heard.

 

[dasfonzie]

Re: Difference between Taylor and Martin acoustics?

I havea Tsaylor 110E that I paid $600 for. I love the way it plays. Ebony fretboards are my favorite now

Sounds good too. But I still want a Gibson Hummingbird

 

[bgood]

Re: Difference between Taylor and Martin acoustics?

both are supurb. The only meaningful differences will be in the ear of the player. I can say that my Taylor is easier to play than the Martins I have played but that could be simply a matter of playing what you are used to. All my electrics have big necks so for me it's more about action and string spacing. Hard to go apples to apples on that stuff.

 

[Mike D]

Re: Difference between Taylor and Martin acoustics?

both are supurb. The only meaningful differences will be in the ear of the player. I can say that my Taylor is easier to play than the Martins I have played but that could be simply a matter of playing what you are used to. All my electrics have big necks so for me it's more about action and string spacing. Hard to go apples to apples on that stuff.

+1

You're going to find your die-hard fans on each side. Only you can tell which one is right for you. I personally like the feel of my Taylor compared to Martins in terms of playablity. Both companies have their own sound and I prefer Taylor. I'm also a fan of their ES.

 

[vinterland]

Re: Difference between Taylor and Martin acoustics?

Maybe its just my dads taylor(810 series I believe) but, it has the biggest low end I have ever heard on any acoustic. I know most of the time taylors aren't typically thought of that way but its the truth here. I've mic'd it up plenty and I've always have to pull some low end out. IMO, the older taylors(which his is) before they got really popular to me sound a little bassier and deeper than the new. Better woods?? little different design??? I'm not sure but I have found this to be the case more often than not.

 

[firebirdVII]

Re: Difference between Taylor and Martin acoustics?

ALL Acoustic guitars require a break in period. If they are solid wood construction the wood has to vibrate so it "opens up". Depending on the woods, the player who is playing it and how often it is being played. This break in period could be as little as a few months to a year, and will continue to sound better as time goes on. IMHO thats why a guitar that has been played by a real player will sound better over time than someone who does not play as well. The guitar will respond to what and who is playing it. I never realized this myself until I had the oppurtunity to play Tony Matolas L5. For those of you who don't know him, he was the guitarist for the CBS orhestra for about 20 years. He played this particular L5 for about 5 or 6 hours a day 5 days a week. He was a great all arond big band type of player and basically defined the conept of Chord melody. This L5 is without question the best sounding acoustic archtop I ever heard.

I realize that, but I wanted to differentiate between Taylor and Martin. I didn't really do that too well though. A really good Taylor will generally sound really good right out of the box, and mature a little. A heavy guitar takes a bit longer, but sound better in my opinion. Although they can both sound so damn good.

 

[gt5litre]

Re: Difference between Taylor and Martin acoustics?

Well I have a Tacoma DR14, a 1975 Yairi DY77 (both are spruce with Rosewood) and recently got a Martin D-18V. The Yairi is the sweetest sounding and great for some Bluegrass, but best for singer /songwriter stuff.

The D-18V is a warm, loud snappy sounding guitar meant for Bluegrass. It has scalloped forward bracing like a Golden Era Martin, Honduran mahogany body and neck, spruce top with a Vintage finish, Vintage style Waverly Tuners and a fat V-neck. Plays like a dream and able to drown out other guitars at a "Jam". Has that old "HOG" growl that mahogany is know for, but warm and snappy too.

The Tacoma has a electric-like neck and is easy to play, but has more bass and volume than a Taylor. Great prices for a solid wood a made in USA guitar.

gt5litre

 

[ErikH]

Re: Difference between Taylor and Martin acoustics?

I agree with Curly, Christian, Mike, Rid and GJ. Martin all the way. I wouldn't say they're darker, but warmer, are full sounding. That's what I look for and the Martins have it. I love my D-28 and will keep it forever. At some point my daughter will end up with it but that is many many many years away.

 

[GuitarStv]

Re: Difference between Taylor and Martin acoustics?

I really liked a buddies old gibson guitar . . . can't remember what type it was, but it was a smaller body and all mahogony. Very deep, thick sound but still lively when you hit the strings hard . . . that's been my go to sound when I think of a great acoustic . . .