K12, W12 vs other x12s

chubakabra · #1 01-09-2007, 06:12 PM

Hi all,

I'm thinking of getting a small bodied guitar, been playing some of the x12 (6, 8 and 9 series). I really like them all, but I'm a weak person so I kind of fell for all the bling of the 912. So I had almost settled for a 912, no c or e. Then I started thinking that I hadn't tried the K12 and the W12 which to me looks like having the same bling factor as the 912.

So I'm wondering how would you describe the sound of these to guitars compared to the 912 series, or in general? Are they worth giving a thought or two?

I would also like some thoughts about which of the x12 you find to have the "biggest" sound, given that they all are revoiced.

Any input will be deeply appreciated!

PS. Could any of you PM me with a "going rate" for a cindy upgrade on the 912, K12 and/or W12? (I'm guessing it's too expensive, but maybe...well, we'll see)

Kind regards

Andromeda · #2 01-09-2007, 07:59 PM

PM sent!

jhchang · #3 01-09-2007, 11:04 PM

I'd believe they are pretty much the same. The difference is really subtle, maybe indiscernable. I have a 612C custom of similar bling level you're looking for sale. You can check out my post in the Classified.

dahn8 · #4 01-10-2007, 01:44 AM

I'm not sure which will have the biggest sound, but there should be some tonal differences due to the different type of woods used. Since you said you tried the 612 (maple) and 912 (rosewood), i'm sure you know how they sound like. I find walnut to be tonally in between maple and rosewood. Koa is somewhat like mahogany to me.

Whether or not you want to check them out, it's up to you. I really like taylor's walnuts though!

tim farney · #5 01-10-2007, 06:14 AM

Walnut is bright and dry, not unlike maple. Koa is very mahogany-like, which means it will be warmer than the walnut, but still very crisp. Rosewood, particularly Indian, adds a lot of low midrange overtones and a reverby quality that is dark and enhances bass and sustain.

An X12 is a small guitar, which is bright. It's a Taylor, which is bright. I think they really benefit from the dark overtones of rosewood, which gives them a depth that I don't hear in other X12s. That's why my Taylor is an 812c (no e). But that's the judgement of my ears. You may like a crisper, more fundamental sound, in which case mahogany, koa, walnut or maple might be for you.

Tim

chubakabra · #6 01-10-2007, 07:16 AM

Thank you all for your input!

jhchang: Your guitar is really something special. It's absolutely gorgeous, but I really prefer my wood in a natural finish. I have never understood why people would destroy beautifully figured wood with paint

And all though I preferred the bling on the 912, it also had something (mostly actually) to do with tone.

It will be much "work" for me to get to try a K12 or a W12 (if even possible here in Norway), and from what you describe of it's tonal properties my guess is that I still would prefer the rosewood/engelmann of the 912. So I'm guessing I will stick to the original plan. I really, really liked both 912s I have tried.

Kind of scary though, to order something like this without playing it first (sadly I have NO option there), but it's kind of exciting too. I'm hoping it will prove to be just as a pleasant surprise as my two other Taylors.

And then we'll see if I can afford the Cindy or not

Kind regards

tim farney · #7 01-10-2007, 08:28 AM

FWIW, while I agree that design has a greater effect on tone, I don't find the difference between the various tonewoods, on similar instruments, to be particularly subtle at all. Especially when you get to the extremes of comparing maple to rosewood. I think the difference is pretty striking between the dry snap of maple and the thick midrange hum of Indian. With that said, once you get past wood choices, what you're paying for is bling. A 912 is a 712 with pearl. Nothing wrong with that, but that's the way it is.

Tim

Kaimana450k · #8 01-10-2007, 09:33 AM

Aloha,
You should do a search for the Xmas posts by Picker2. He played his k22(whick is the same as a K12 but with a koa top) along side his new W12 and his XXX. It is a video clip and should help you judge the subtle tonal differences,a dn give you a visual on the bling factor...
BTW the only x12 I have is a K12ce custom that I LOVE!!!
Aloha

Kaimana450k · #9 01-10-2007, 09:37 AM

Found the thread:

http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...ight=Christmas

chubakabra · #10 01-10-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaimana450k

Found the thread:

http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...ight=Christmas

Thanks a lot!

That was really cool! Too bad he doesn't know how to play guitar

I really liked the sound of that K22. It was absolutely amazing. And looked awsome. Imagine one of those with Cindy inlays

Wonder how much of it was due to the Koa top, how it sounds compared to a "normal" K12 with an Engelmann top...?

Didn't like the W12 that much. Not bad but kind of "cold". The XXX sounded good, but it was played a little too much up-tempo to compare it with the other two. But still...that K22 - WOW!

Kind regards

woodruff · #11 01-10-2007, 10:30 AM

hopefully Picker2 will chime in here soon, for he has played every x12 series there is(i think) and would have some good advise for you. he got me going onthe x12 series and i love my new 312-CE. i am not a big inlay fan, so this lower end model was ideal, though i got my sites set on a W12 sans inlay in my dreams at night.....also like the 512.........

macfawlty · #12 01-10-2007, 11:58 AM

I thought the maple was the worst sounding Taylor I ever played. Just nothing too it...too bright, very thin and no presence or sustain at all. Don't know how to explain it except to say be cautious of the maple because it is so much different than IR or M. Some people like maple but I don't think it's as good a choice on smaller guitars.

re17 · #13 01-10-2007, 12:19 PM

I tried several unrevoiced 612ce's before getting my present 612 and I can say that all these guitars sounded, well, not bad at all. They don't lack sustain and being maple can produce a very concentrated sound (revoicing helps), though they can be a little lacking in bass. But that's maple for you - just don't have unrealistic expectations of maple (or any tonewood, for that matter).

Richard

woodruff · #14 01-10-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macfawlty

I thought the maple was the worst sounding Taylor I ever played. Just nothing too it...too bright, very thin and no presence or sustain at all. Don't know how to explain it except to say be cautious of the maple because it is so much different than IR or M. Some people like maple but I don't think it's as good a choice on smaller guitars.

i thought 512 was tropical american mahogany, not maple, maple is the 600 series.......

dahn8 · #15 01-10-2007, 01:50 PM

Regarding koa... to me, it is a pretty variable tonewood, even for Taylor, which i feel produces pretty consistent guitars. Some are just amazing while others are mediocre. Maybe i just have had bad luck with Koa Taylors, but if you are leaning towards koa, i'd try to play or hear it first if possible. Maybe other people have different experiences with it. But for what it's worth, my friend has a XXX koa model and it was one of the best taylors i've played.