#76
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Guitars always sound better in a high-end guitar store. I can't shake the feeling that if it's in a Guitar Center, it can't be a decent guitar. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#78
|
||||
|
||||
Old models or not, I've always liked the maple and ovangkol b/s Taylors. Why I don't have one, I'll never figure out. Hmmm.
__________________
Barry My SoundCloud page Avalon L-320C, Guild D-120, Martin D-16GT, McIlroy A20, Pellerin SJ CW Cordobas - C5, Fusion 12 Orchestra, C12, Stage Traditional Alvarez AP66SB, Seagull Folk Aria {Johann Logy}: |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
It scared me too, in fact to the point that I ordered one with a 1-7/8" nut. A year after owning it I think it sounds even better tuned down a half step.
__________________
Jim in St. Louis Taylor NS34c Tayor 616 (2016) Emerald Custom X20 Artisan Some past guitars: 1968 Martin D35-S Martin 00-28VS Rainsong Dread |
#80
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But I wonder if irrelevent is really the correct term? Maybe uninformed is more accurate. Because my dislikes are just as relevant to me as my likes. Now I have to admit I have not tried any of the new Taylors or any new Martins for that matter. So this next part is about what was considered the prototypical Martin and Taylor sound of say 10 years and further back. (note I realize you may not be a Martin fan, I am using the typical Martin vs Taylor debate as simply an example) Honestly in terms of objectivity the new voicing on Taylor is also somewhat irrelevant, because there was nothing objectively wrong with the old voicing. It was just different than Martin or other voicing. While I completely understand that the new Taylor voicing may be different and for you it was a game changer. But for someone like me who liked the old voicing that is not particularly relevant And far as "thin and metallic" that is a very relevant notion (totally subjective but relevant) for someone who liked the Martin sound. Because that might be the honest impression for them and relevant to them . Just like for me, who loves the sound of my 2002 Taylor 810 to whom "thin and metallic" actually means detailed and clear with pristine highs. Where as all the 50 -70 some Martins I played prior to buying my Taylor, sounded like Lower Mid to Mid range heavy... mush... lacking detail (again totally subjective ) but that's the way they sound to me and it was very relevant. But the important point is the fact that I do not care for sweet potato should have no influence on your liking it, nor should my dislike have any effect on you or insult you . Just like I don't care if someone can't stand the taste and texture of Avocado I love it and have a whole one almost every day. Which is the meat of the entire Taylor V. Martin silliness
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev... KevWind at Soundcloud KevWind at YouYube https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD System : Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1 Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Sonoma 14.4 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
I feel the same way. Andy Powers has done a good thing there at Taylor guitars. I played the new 9 series at Gryphon recently and I was pleasantly surprised. It actually felt worth the cost which was high.
__________________
Crazy guitar nut in search of the best sounding guitars built today and yesterday. High End Guitar Review Videos. www.youtube.com/user/rockinb23 |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
in total agreement that Andy Powers has moved Taylor into a positive direction and is/will be appealing to more people who in the past were not attracted to a Taylor.
I'm liking his more organic look to the guitars as well. I've never cared for some of the visual appointments pre-powers. I've owned all over the map(Martin,Guild,Yairi,Taylor,Goodall,Gibson,Larri vee, Santa Cruz,some carbon,some luthier builds) and I've found the Taylors I've played in the past 2 years to be much more appealing in tone and visual appointments, than in previous years. d |