|
|
#19
05-26-2005, 10:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I am fortunate enough to have a Taylor 310ce and a Martin D-16RGT. I didn't appreciate the Taylor until I got the Martin not too long ago. They both have their strong suits and I love them both - plan to keep them and enjoy their sound as they age.
For what it's worth, the Martin has a more bassy bottom, but the Taylor is a joy to play as well. Wider neck for fingerstyle. When I play one, I am compelled to pick up the other later in the session. They perfectly complement each other. Ain't life grand! 
|
|
#20
05-26-2005, 10:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The way I see it, both are great guitars, as are many others (Larrivee, SC, Collings, etc.). However, they are not the same. There is a pretty disctinct difference between the way that a Martin and a Taylor play and sound. It is tough for a newbie like me to describe well enough, but I will try anyway. It seems like the Taylors I have played have been a bit more effortless to use, easy fretting, etc. The Martins were a bit tougher to play (if I understand correctly, they come from the factory set up with higher action, but a setup can correct this difference). Though the Taylors seem easier to play, the Martins I have played seem to have a darker, more pleasant tone to my ear. The Taylors sounded great, but not as dark (not sure if that word makes sense to you in terms of tone or not, but it is the word I will use). Some people like the Taylor tone better, or are willing to sacrifice the dark tone in favor of an easier playing instrument.
Big picture: Either of these will suit you well, depending on what you want out of a guitar. I ended up buying neither, and got a Larrivee OM3-MT instead. I am very satisfied with it. I do think my Gull plays a bit easier right now, but the Larrivee tone is a bit more pleasing to the ear.
|
|
#21
05-26-2005, 10:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
For someone "new" to this, you did a fine job describing what many, many others have in much the same ways. It took until "my old age" (50's) to begin to appreciate acoustic guitars the way I do now. I thank forums like this for opening my eyes and ears to a lot of stuff I just didn't bother to think about much before.
Some folks have described this as being a "golden age of luthery." I look at all the major makers (like Taylor, Martin, Gibson, etc.), all the less LARGE ones (like Larrivee, Tacoma[Fender owned now], etc.) the "imports" (Takamine, Blueridge, Washburn, Cort, etc.) and the independent luthiers or small shops (way too many good ones out there to even begin to name!), and remember "back in my youth" it seemed we had Martins, Gibsons, Guilds, Harmony, Ovations-but nothing like the kinds of choices out there now. Most imports were marginal-some better than others-but nothing that really rang a lot of bells. Boy--has THAT changed! Anyway, with so many choices, and new ones springing up it seems almost daily, anyone should be able to find any number of great sounding, playing and built guitars. Really phenomenal to me.
|
|
#22
05-27-2005, 04:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think Taylor's are a bit overrated. They spend too much time worrying about cosmetics and pricing there stuff a bit higher. Yes I know they are consistent in coming out the factory with low action but you can get any guitar set up with low action. Plus. I dont like the direction they are going. Coming out with this new T-5 without taking care of the E.S. problem first. I think people buy Taylor's for the phycological reason that if something is more expensive then it must be better.
I am not knocking on them or anything but I think their prices need to be reduced. If somebody wants a Taylor like tone they can buy a Larrivee for half the price and a better pickup. Or if you have the money, for just a bit more you can get a handmade guitar.
|
|
#23
05-27-2005, 05:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
When I first came back to acoustic guitar after 25 years away I bought a Taylor, and then another and another and another actually many "anothers" -- I think I owned 8 Taylors overall. I also bought a couple of really nice Gibsons (J-50 and a J-200). THEN I went and found what I wanted in a Martin -- which was the size of a Taylor X14 with better balance and tone which was a Martin MC-40. Now my last Taylor is up for sale and my 6th Martin is arriving soon.
__________________
Joe "What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?"
|
|
#25
05-27-2005, 06:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is so much more fun of a place to debate this stuff than the guitar.com forums, since no one is telling anyone else to shut the blank up, go blank themselves, etc. Also, everyone here types in complete sentences. Ah, adulthood.
Anyway, this is a fun issue, because only one thing matters - the guitar. There's no amp, pickups, effects, etc., coming into play. Okay, first off, I'm a big Taylor fan. I have a 414-CE which I absolutely love. But, Martin dreads are definitely growing on me, and I have now FINALLY played a Gibson I like. Taylor: In general, I think with a Taylor, you tend to hear the strings more, if that makes sense. It's an airy, bright sound, and I find it to be very touch-senstive, from gentle and pretty to punchy and penetrating. It is NOT a "traditional" acoustic sound, because... Martin: THIS is the traditional sound. I can really hear the wood here, as opposed to the strings, which is why I think some people call this a warmer tone. I could also call it a deep sound (some Taylor dreads get here, too.) Gibson: This is based on the one good one I've played, and it sounded great. I really thought this was the rock strummer's tone - Mellencamp, etc. It's a clear woody tone, but fairly bass-heavy for me. String-to-string, I didn't find it to be a balanced tone - the lower frequencies are much more present. But, it has its place. Have fun exploring, and coming up with your own descriptions. But, like said above, it's all about finding your won voice. And, yes, those **** mustache bridges are hideous.
__________________
Jason ----------- Taylor 414-CE ("Nicole") Taylor 522-CE 12-fret (DADGAD, etc.) 1969 Gibson C-1 Classical ("Daisy") 2007 Walden G570 ("Colleen") Fender Standard Stratocaster ("Belle") Epiphone Les Paul Standard ("Smokey") Kit-built Tele-style ("Hazel")
|
|
#27
05-27-2005, 07:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#28
05-27-2005, 07:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I like Martins and I like Taylors, and I like them for different reasons, with a singular reason at the base - I like acoustic guitars. They sound different, and Taylor has never made a secret that they're not trying to sound like Martin. To my mind that's a good thing.
To my ear, except for a few exceptional examples, they're both generally a compromise on the sound I want. Whether it's an aspect of tone I want added or taken away, I prefer Santa Cruz to Martin, and I prefer handbuilts to Taylor. Both Taylor and Martin are in categories I like, and both fall short of my hopes 98% of the time, if only by a little bit. But I would gladly accept any of their best examples as the "only guitar I could own." Beyond that, Taylor's primary focus seems to be innovation and re-invention - Martin's seems to be tradition, and both have their up and down cycles. Both are good at what they do. But other companies and luthiers, while nodding to (and sometimes participating in) both things, seem to be more about refinement, and that's where my ear happens to be, too, so they meet what I'm looking for more of the time. In high-end guitars, both companies are great starting points, and on very rare occasions, an endpoint in a search. And while I'm a big fan of Martin, I will say this - if I had to buy one guitar and it would be my last, and I had to buy it sight unseen, and it had to be a Martin or a Taylor, I would go for the Taylor. It's not merely playability - Taylor's tone, while generally not the top of my chart, is more of a known quantity, and their "low rung" of tone, at least to me, is at a higher average level than Martin's low rung. I've only played one or two really useless Taylors, but I've played countless Martins I wouln't spend ten dollars on. But given time to search and a budget that was less limited, and it had to be a Martin or a Taylor, I'd probably end up with a Martin, because I think their upper limit of what I'm looking for is generally higher. So I think Martin has a wider quality of sound range, with greater risks but an also greater payoff tonally, whereas Taylor has a better average, with less up and down possibilities overall, but certainly is more tonally consistent. And I haven't found one of either company that put me in awe every time I play - I have two that do that right now, and they don't begin with either M or T. All the best, Wade
|
|
#29
05-27-2005, 08:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's like dating. Some people only goes out with one type of girls (or guys - trying to be non-sexist here). Back when I was single, I would go out with all types of girls - frankly, the more the merrier. I don't see people dissing James Bond for having many girlfriends.
So don't worry, be happy. Do what you want. Stick with Taylor. Stick with Martin. Or be like me, have both and have non Martin non Taylor too. You don't know what you are missing by sticking with one.
|
|
#30
05-27-2005, 08:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I think Taylors are, in general, better suited for a plugged in application and Martins are better suited for pure acoustic. You'll rarely, if ever, see a bluegrasser playing a Taylor with a mic in front of it. More often than not it's a Martin and a mic. With that said, both guitars do very well in either scenario - it's just that each is stronger depending on the application. I feel that for overall tone, Martin wins. Taylor's easier to fret due to lower action, that's easy to remedy. And with the right gear, a Martin can do very well plugged in.
|
