Taylor guitars...sorta blow.

[eligit]

how did this brand ever get to dominate the market?

it's something i have always wondered about.

i owned one of their higher end guitars for a couple years and have played others and they are all over the place commercially. now that i have owned a couple of really nice acoustics over the last few years the whack nature of the taylor is more blatantly obvious when i listen back to older recordings i made with them and play random ones here and there.

They sound cold, hard, trebly, synthetic (which is also how they all feel), loud, "modern" (in the worst way), vibeless...how do people miss this and spend thousands on them? and the famed "playabiliy" can be replicated or bettered with simply a really good set up and fret job on pretty much any other guitar.

what is the deal?

[JSVice]

I don't know. Do they dominate? I personally have wondered the same thing about Larrivee. Take the fancy inlay work away from a Larrivee and you'd have a Takamine. I for one, have always liked Taylor. The good Taylors, that is. I'm not going to play a 410 or a Baby Taylor and call it a high end guitar. I kinda think the Baby Taylor should have been aborted, or at the very least, thrown out with the bathwater. I own a 710CE and think it's pretty darn good. I also own a McPherson and think it's out of this world.

I think you also have to pick your guitar to suit your style of music. I wouldn't have picked my 710 if my main style was Bluegrass. I would have picked a Martin. I think that's all they're good for.

[Ahellam]

I agree they sorta blow. The Jumbo is o-k. Taylors are kinda like a solid state amp compared to a tube amp (alot of other acoustics in the price range). Taylors can sound good but there is alot of better choices IMO.

[Curtis Franklin]

Taylors are great, because they are all the same. They are luthier designed, machine made guitars. They are a stand by.

I personally will only use them if they need to be really up front. They don't sit in the mix very well.

Also, some of their electronics are cool.

[JSVice]

What Taylors are you guys talking about? I'm going to guess probably not a 710, 914, or any other high end model unless it's maybe the T5, which I also think sounds artificial. Maybe I'm out of the loop. I bought my Taylor about 4 years ago and compared it to everything, and I mean everything, in it's price range. For the style of music I play, which is mostly fingerstyle, nothing beat it. Like I said earlier, if I was a flatpicker, I'd go with something else. What style of music are you guys playing on them? Just strumming out chords, or are you playing fingerstyle?

[Jay Kahrs]

I'm not a huge Taylor fan either...brash, harsh...spitty. Not much "body" or depth to the tone...but I've also picked up a a LOT of super-dead Martins in the last few years...

My "ideal" acoustic tone is 70's era Crosby, Stills & Nash...70's Martin, probably Rosewood. That tone doesn't exist in any kinda "modern" made guitar I've played but I've heard it in '70s Jap acoustics....

[JSVice]

Originally Posted by Jay Kahrs

I'm not a huge Taylor fan either...brash, harsh...spitty. Not much "body" or depth to the tone...but I've also picked up a a LOT of super-dead Martins in the last few years...

My "ideal" acoustic tone is 70's era Crosby, Stills & Nash...70's Martin, probably Rosewood. That tone doesn't exist in any kinda "modern" made guitar I've played but I've heard it in '70s Jap acoustics....

What you would perceive as a lack of body, I call a lack of boominess, which is something that I really appreciate in Taylors and it also makes them easier to record. I also happen to have a 1970's Japanese acoustic. It's a Yamaha that my Mom bought when I was a wee babe. I won't be selling it any time soon, but that's more sentimental value than anything. It doesn't hang in my book with my other two acoustics. My McPherson is a mahogany model, and is the single best sounding guitar that I've ever owned. Of course, it cost twice what my Taylor cost also.

[HEADROOM]

My "ideal" acoustic tone is 70's era Crosby, Stills & Nash...70's Martin, probably Rosewood.

Crosby , Stills, Nash were using Pre-war Martins (brazilian rosewood)..........which are unbeatable.......actually 70 s Martins (indian rosewood) are mediocre......

Having said that :No 2 guitars sound the same.....

[pan60]

i like most of the Taylors i have played.
i am not a big Martin, ( sorry Jay Kahrs and others ) but as mentioned sort of some of the older Martins many i feel are so overly bass flaky i just do not like them.
but i am not a Dreadnaught fan ether.
i have a 912C that is close to twelve years old now and i still like it.
i think a lot of it may have to do with the styles of the players.
i have some buddies that are hard core Martin fans and you could hand them the worst sounding Martin ever to grace this rock and they would grin like a possum eatin shit an proudly proclaim now thats the way a geee-tarrr should sound: )
i like the balance of my Taylor.
but i also really like some of what the boutique guitar makers are doing as well.

[pan60]

Originally Posted by JSVice

What you would perceive as a lack of body, I call a lack of boominess,

which to me translates as a lack of mud: )

[popmann]

My "ideal" acoustic tone is 70's era Crosby, Stills & Nash

So, you're cutting with U67s through NEVE pres to tape, right? Comparing the tone of old CSNY recordings to what you get pointing a KM184 at a Taylor 310 and thinking the difference in the guitar is what you're hearing is silly.

I think Taylors are the best mass produced acoustics hands down. Not even CLOSE. The highest end Martins are the only ones I'd consider as an alternative.

I've got a 14 year old (no bridge pin era) 410RW Taylor. I recently took it around to shops here in town. The ONLY guitar I played that beat it...? Collings dread. $4k. Basically, the high end of Taylor and Martin were "on par"...and at $2-3k...this guitar was a $1k 14 years ago.

To clear up why they're used live...because they play the best...and live, who gives a crap if it's thin? You're gonna use the damn pickup anyway.

And to me...the argument about the mix? I think they fit BETTER in a mix than others. I think, in fact, that's the arguement AGAINST them for acoustic based artists...that they have less middy expression for fingerpicking and such.

[eligit]

Originally Posted by Ahellam

I agree they sorta blow. The Jumbo is o-k. Taylors are kinda like a solid state amp compared to a tube amp (alot of other acoustics in the price range). Taylors can sound good but there is alot of better choices IMO.

i think that is a pretty good description. solid state.

here is another crazy comment from me: i think most of the new martins also sound pretty bad. sort of like cardboard. i've played some nice old ones but even some of those were nothing that amazing after you get over the cool feel and vibe of an old acoustic guitar.

and the taylor i owned for a couple years was a 714ce. a $2700 guitar when new. it really was a bad guitar. true, all the notes were clear and even. and cold and uninteresting to hear. not a cheap guitar by any means.

those things are very durable tho.

but i have played plywood yamahas that had more pleasing tone.

[Methlab]

I love Taylors. I toured with a bunch of them. They hook you up well, great company. I truly love the sound of these guitars, and the playability is grade a.

We should have a thread where you name your top acoustics for recording.

[Mind-Over-Midi]

Originally Posted by Methlab

I love Taylors.

Me too! Those of you not in love with yours anymore PM me and I'll tell you how you can donate it to me!

[henryrobinett]

I'm a big Taylor fan. I love the clarity and lack of boominness, except for my Dreadnaught Anniversaary. But it HAS plenty of tone. Both of my Taylors just sound wonderful.

[Musiclab]

While I wouldn't call myself a huge Taylor fan, I think they are good guitars. I have a 10 year old 412 which is a small body acoustic, kinda 000 sized and it sounds very good and records really good. In general I've always found that dreadnoughts don't record as well as small body instruments unless it's a naked track. The small martins I've found to be alittle inconsistent although I have a client who has a real nice sounding 00016 and Larry Salzman has a very nice 00018. I have a client who has the clapton model martin and that sounds really good but I think it's around 3 grand.
There is a cheap Taylor Grand Auditorium that goes for around 800 bucks, that although it looks terrible I think sounds pretty good, it more of a Jumbo size rather than 000, but it works. I'm curious about these Blueridge guitars, any playing them.
I'd like to find the Agile of acoustics

[pan60]

just as soon as i get a couple more comps and a few more P-1's in my rack i want one of the NS-62's!
i have played a couple and nice they are they are!

[JSVice]

Originally Posted by Musiclab

I'm curious about these Blueridge guitars, any playing them.

A good friend of mine just bought a Blueridge. The strap pin/1/4" jack on the end came out after about 3 weeks. He's now playing my Taylor live. They aren't in the same league in tone, playability, or reliability.

[Jackie Treehorn]

I haven't bought a new acoustic for several years, but the last time I auditioned for a new one, I got a 25th anniversiary Taylor 714. It smoked the Martins in its price range (and I own a Martin).

Reminder: the Taylor guitars in the music stores come with Elixir strings, which sound downright awful (though you can take comfort in the fact that they'll sound that way for a really, really long time!). If you're going to drop a couple grand on a guitar, the dealer should gladly restring a couple guitars for a shootout.

The best-sounding acoustic I've ever played is my friend's jumbo Gibson (I forget the model number), which I borrow occasionally for recording. Not sure if it's a fair comparison, since the Gibson cost about twice as much!

[redddog]

Hey Popmann,

I've got the same guitar - the410 without the pins. I freakin love that guitar and regularly pick it to record with over anything. A good buddy has a vitage gibson J160 and while it sounded great live, we couldn't get a good recording of it. Same with Guilds. That Taylor though, it just sits well. Very easy. When I first started shopping around, I went into a tiny guitar shop in Wash, DC. I played Martins, Guilds, Gibsons, everything. I played a Taylor 510 and it just felt and sounded better than any of 'em. I ordered a 410 right then. The other thing about them is that they mix incredibly well with other acoustic instruments.

When I went to pick up that guitar, after it came in to the shop, the guys in the shop offered to upgrade me to the 610 if they could keep my 410. I told them to blow.

I love that thing.

[Confusionator]

I'm glad to see this topic. The 10 or so that I've recorded have all been tonally mediocre, regardless of price. And their intonation has been less than stellar, too--in many cases virtually unusable. I guess I'm just a Martin guy (along with the awesome boutique stuff).

[Acoustic Cloud]

I think the big baby Taylor sounds great!
The attention to detail and manufacturing tolerances doesnt match their sound, IMO.

I just bought a Garrison (Canada) that is a perfect compliment to my Tacoma DR-20 (pre Fender).

Those both burn every Taylor I have ever heard. YOMV

[Kappi]

In the studio i don't use my Taylor, but on stage the expression-system is absolutly no1 for me.
I have dynamics like a piano ,it really changed my playing-style to more velocity.
For recording I am actually chasing some Martins.....

I would love to see a Martin with Expression-system.......

[eligit]

for live acoustic work at high volumes....well that is just another topic. there are so many issues there. at low volume with a stationary player (bluegrass) you can just mic it up...but for the standing and moving thing....well that's just a problem for getting a really natural sound that does not include brutal feedback.

but as far as sounding really sweet in the studio both my santa cruz and lowden just made my taylor tracks sound totally generic and flat by comparison.

[Ruudman]

Originally Posted by JSVice

Take the fancy inlay work away from a Larrivee and you'd have a Takamine.

Bull


ruudman

[flail19]

I feel I have to chime in. I love everything about my Taylor. I sold my Takamine and have never looked back.

[picksail]

I've never had much luck with a higher-end guitar working well within the context of a mix. Especially, a pop/rock mix. It seems all the inherent qualities of these instruments get totally lost and are more appropriate for perfoming as a solo act at a coffee shoppe.

Unless I'm mixing a song, which features the guitar as the primary accompaniment, then it's just a waste. All the character of these 'fine' guitars lives somewhere below 300Hz. Too much 750-800 Hz? Outta there. In a pop mix that stuff gets hi-passed/notched very quickly to make room for all the other primary instruments. It most cases, I am perceiving the acoustic guitar as a melodic percussion instrument. Often to emphasize and compliment the hi-hat figure. And often times, the orchestration and arrangements are written within this context.

I do, however, find that the Larrivee guitars do work quite well. They are very evenly balanced and when subjected to radical EQing they still poke through.

It seems that a lot of the less expensive guitars work the best for me. I'm talking cheapo here!!!! They are of a lesser quality and thus do not have the character of say, Martin or Guild Jumbo. Instead they are made from cheap wood, which will forego the low mid/bass frequencies, those frequencies which we commonly refer to as "body", "tone", and "warmth". Warm acoustic guitars just don't have a lot to say within the context of a pop/rock mix. Unfortunately, all the good stuff gets lost.

Did I mention the word, context...

It still amazes me to this day, how I continue to discover the distinguishing characteristics between a live performance instrument and one that will work well within a mix environment

[henryrobinett]

Ha! That's very interesting! That's why I don't like my high end dreadnaught Taylor for recording but my 414CE does quite well.

[JSVice]

Originally Posted by Ruudman

Bull


ruudman

You're right. That is bull. Takamines play better.

[picksail]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Ha! That's very interesting! That's why I don't like my high end dreadnaught Taylor for recording but my 414CE does quite well.

I'm sure that your guitar sounds just fine.