Why are Taylors so bright?

[KennD]

I've got a Taylor 522 (all mahog) and a Custom GC (Macassar Ebony/Cedar) and I don't think anyone would consider them to be too bright..I certainly don't!

[s2y]

Do they all sound like the 110? I'd start there.

They make different body styles, different scale lengths, and different woods. I have a walnut 12 fret, 514e, and BTO dreadnought with an Adi top. They all sound different. I'd only categorize the 12 fret as a little too bright if REALLY digging in and playing hard.

I find a problem is that the smaller bodied Taylors generally have a cutaway, which tends to make them brighter, which is why I typically avoid them in the smaller Taylors.

[mercy]

I acknowledge that a cedar or hog top would tone things down a lot. Ive yet to play one of those. Also my experience with Taylors was cutaways, dont seem like that would change the tone though. I should play some of the new iterations I guess.

[AmericanEagle]

Originally Posted by RP

I've never bought into the whole "Taylors are too bright" notion. The tone of the ones I own suit me really well. Not to sound snarky, but I truly believe that it's one of those internet forum/guitar store stereotypes that gets repeated often enough to become thrown out as "fact," be it true or not. I imagine that putting varied sets of strings on a bright Taylor would make a noticeable difference but the stereotype would remain....

I agree. I find that some people who complain about Taylors "brightness" are just people who are die-hard Martin fans who cannot seem to like Taylors as well.
I have a Taylor 110, and it does not sound too bright at all to me.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Hurricane Bob

Its been mentioned a few times on this forum and my 110 definitely is on the bright side. Not that I mind, it cuts through nicely when playing solos with my acoustic band. Is it the 3 bolt on neck screws? Design?

Primarily it is the bracing that effects if the tonal balance skews more toward the treble or the bass. Traditionally Taylor's skewed a bit toward the treble while Martin's skewed toward the bass. (and Gibson toward the midrange) Particularly when compared directly with each other.

Whether or not it was "too bright" or "too boomy" depended of what the individual preferred. There is no "right answer" when it comes to a preference. But the topic did fuel many a vitriolic thread on internet forums, particularly the unmoderated ones.

TW

(My data is based on Tayor's before the AP redesigns. Sometime when I am at Dusty Strings when it is quiet and I have some time I should give a few a go. But I am usually looking at something on the used wall. I beg forgiveness)

[martingitdave]

Everyone's hearing is different. There are no absolutes. Prior to getting my hearing addressed, I had some high frequency loss. I had no issues with Taylors, nor did I consider them bright. I now find them entirely too bright. The guitars didn't change, my hearing did. If it sounds bright to you, it's bright. The bracing, tops, neck design, neck attachment, materials and body dimensions lead to bright guitars. I recently got to play a number of 90s Taylors and early 2000s Taylors. To me, they were much less bright.

Keep in mind that the average age on this forum is 60 years old and predominately male. This demographic is predisposed to high frequency hearing loss. If you go on UMGF all the old timers are buying D18s and moving on from D28s. Their hearing is consistent with the frequencies of the D18, and the D28s are not as appealing.

Guitars are made of wood. Players are made of fragile flesh, bone, and cilia.

[CT77]

I've noticed a clear difference between the 2016 "re-voiced" models by Andy Powers and traditionally voiced Taylors. I'm not sure its only about brightness, though that's part of the overall effect. What I think of as the Taylor "Sparkle", especially with Exlixer PB's, is still there for sure, but everything sounds fuller and more balanced to me on the re-voiced guitars. It's as if more has been added to the mid-range and bass, and that now balances the highs better.

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by ChrisE

Some may use the term "balanced."

Some may, but nope, that's Larrivee's claim to fame and it's true.

I like "crisp" or "articulate", even punchy ...or the antithesis of Martin I suppose.

[Puerto Player]

It's not that they're bright, they just lack the bass of a good Gibson or vintage Martin.

[s2y]

Speaking of hearing, the biggest local tone snobs in my area have moderate to severe hearing loss, yet somehow consider their opinions to be gold. Odd.

[Kupuna50]

I have to agree that most Taylor's seem bright. My guess is that it is primarily a combination of the bracing pattern and the strings used.
From the bracing perspective, maybe the 'new voicing' is an attempt to rectify that situation . Perhaps Taylor finally got the message that their guitars were 'too bright'. Can't think of another reason for them to change (other than wanting to be more like Martin, and others)
Just my humble opinion....

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by s2y

Speaking of hearing, the biggest local tone snobs in my area have moderate to severe hearing loss, yet somehow consider their opinions to be gold. Odd.

I'm happy for them.

[martingitdave]

Originally Posted by s2y

Speaking of hearing, the biggest local tone snobs in my area have moderate to severe hearing loss, yet somehow consider their opinions to be gold. Odd.

That's exactly the point I was making above. Agreed.

[dwasifar]

Originally Posted by martingitdave

Everyone's hearing is different. There are no absolutes. Prior to getting my hearing addressed, I had some high frequency loss.

You got your highs BACK? How?

Originally Posted by martingitdave

Keep in mind that the average age on this forum is 60 years old and predominately male.

This is documented? I don't doubt you, I'm just wondering how you know.

[jkilgour2000]

It's all about the strings IMHO.