Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

[Diminished Triad]

Earlier this summer I spent a few days going back and forth (as long as the family would let me get away!) and in and out of the Guitar Center in Las Vegas. One of the managers approached me after seeing me on my 3rd day (I play other instruments so I wasn't just in the guitar or acoustic guitar section - but did spend most of my time there for sure). I believe he was/is the overall manager because I've seen his pic advertised nationally for Guitar Center.....but in any event he told me that he was a huge Taylor fan. He told me he had a collection of Taylors and because of their comfort never thought to give Martins or others much of a try.

Then he bought his first Martin, and he told me story after story of how dollar for dollar Martins are better acoustic guitars than Taylors. Bottom line is for somewhere between 2k and 3.5k, you could own a really good Taylor.....or a lower priced Martin, but according to the manager his experience is that Martin is still the best investment and the wood, the sound, everything impresses him more than with Taylors. He was actually trying to sell me a Martin with a lower price than the Taylor I was looking at in their acoustic room.

I ended up not buying either guitar and figured I'd think about it and when I do buy another acoustic I'll give his advice lots of thought. Does anyone have experience with comparing Martins and Taylors of roughly the same price category and what has or has not impressed you with either? I like comfort, low action, and more comfort when playing an acoustic....and so Taylor has always done it for me. But of course I never bothered to give Martins much of a chance because I didn't think Martins sold for anything less than a few thousand.....when actually there are quite a few that start at maybe 1200 and somewhere between there and 3500 you can get a very good Martin.

Thanks for any experience anyone can share!

 

[Kramer Guy]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

I've played both at GC and to be honest , I think Martins are much better. Plus they have so many models that are easier on the consumer as far as the price is concerned.

 

[Oinkus]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

I have seen good and bad in both brands and played many of them extensively.Only thing that matters is what your reaction is to the guitar in your hands and ears. If you like it , it is good.I really don't like using better or best in anything musical or in guitar descriptions. Have to say the best acoustic I ever played was an ancient Martin D 45 even with all the fancy extra stuff it was amazing. Friend has a high end Taylor that is very nice but I wouldn't pay 5k for it myself. The low end Taylors are pretty decent as far as it is about the cheapest guitar you can get with an ebony fretboard, a few upgrades and they are good and playable.

 

[jtougas]

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.

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

I use to be a Taylor fan...but lately I've not been impressed. IMO, they do not have the projection unplugged that Martins (or Gibsons) have. I would say overall the Quality of Craftmanship is better with Martin than Taylor at any over $800 new.

Taylor guitars seem to be brighter and sound amazing plugged in. I typically prefer a Taylor neck to a Martin but have always loved the Martin tone over Taylor.

I personally prefer Gibsons overall, I have two Epiphone Masterbilt Advanced Jumbos one with Rosewood sides and back and one with Mahogany sides and back (actually preferred my two Masterbilts over the Gibson AJ I had,) but am saving up for a Martin HD-28.

If I were you I would get a Martin. But get the one you like personally–and don't rush the decision because even the higher end guitars typically lose value once they're out of the store.

 

[jtougas]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

For the same money, I would recommend looking into Larrivees, tbh. Great guitars, solid woods, and great company.

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

For the same money, I would recommend looking into Larrivees, tbh. Great guitars, solid woods, and great company.

I would second this–didn't even think about them but Larrivee makes an awesome acoustic and you can pick them up used very reasonably. I traded a Larrivee D-03 for an American Strat and Vox Amp...I miss that Acoustic although I like my current Advanced Jumbo better.

 

[jtougas]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

Back when usenet was a thing, I hung out on the rmmga newsgroup - as did Matthew Larrivee. When they were coming out with their answer to Taylor's Baby series, he posted, asking for spec suggestions - some of which made it into the production model.

I dug that.

 

[JOLLY]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

Jtougas hit the nail on the head.

 

[PFDarkside]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

If you're ready to spend a couple thousand on a real acoustic, it's tough to go wrong with either. Personally, I feel that anything less than a Martin 15 series is not worth considering (not a fan of their HPL at all) but from that point on up they range from great to incredible. I think Taylor does mid price a bit better than Martin, and even their 100 & 200 series laminate back and sides guitars are quite nice performers.

The thing with Taylor, is that they have a distinct tone, nice and chimey, I completely agree with the "Hi-Fi" comment. Martins have a more "traditional" tone, you've heard them on countless classic rock and folk albums. Regarding playability, the slightly wider nut and lower initial action cause some to say Taylors "play easier". The truth is, Martin makes both 1-11/16" and 1-3/4" but widths, and they setup their guitars from the factory with high action. This is so the player can have their luthier do a final setup with the player's preferred brand and gauge of strings. (What one person considers "high action" for leads at the 10th fret, another considers clean heavy picking and strumming tone) I am accustomed to 13s on a 25.5" scale at standard tuning now. (And the tone from 13s is tough to beat)

If you go sit down for a couple hours with some nice examples from Martin, Taylor and Gibson, you'll find the voice that speaks to you. Personally I was torn between an HD-28V and a DN7. Both Rosewood Dreads, in the end I was drawn to the Martin's tonal complexity and massive bass over the Taylor's chime and more restrained bass. By the way, my research started in May last year and I purchased in October. A nice acoustic is a friend that you'll want to keep around forever, take your time and choose well.

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

Gonna give a shout here for European builders.

I have a 2001 Martin DM with an L R Baggs Anthem SL system. It records nicely. For complex fingerstyle tones, I prefer my Stonebridge/Furch.

 

[PFDarkside]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

Speaking of, if you have the means for a small/custom builder, I highly recommend it.

If I buy a second acoustic I'll give Frank F a serious look.

 

[beaubrummels]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

When I was looking and played Taylors and Martins, my impression was Martins, with new strings, very much had that stereotypical country guitar sound - good for flatpicking and good for chords, especially near the first position. Taylors had a more folk/world sound with more bottom end and high end. Neither had a lot of boldness in the midrange area.

In my experience, both work best as the main guitar or lead acoustic; really up front in the mix and more important part of the sound. If they are just rhythm support, neither survives very well with electrics guitars and other instruments - you just hear the scratch of the pick on the strings due to the lack of strong midrange to cut through.

 

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

I hate Taylor guitars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jtougas]

Re: Taylor versus Martin Acoustic Guitars

BB - body shape has a lot to do with that, in acoustics. The waist between the upper and lower bouts determines midrange (plus body woods). For a lot of bass and midrange boom, look for a dreadnought. For lots of bass, controlled mids, and balanced highs, look for a full size jumbo. For an overall balanced tone good for finger-style stuff, look for an orchestra or grand concert, or maybe a mini jumbo.

 

[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 :friday:

 

[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/new-definitive-martin-guitar-book-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.