I got to try the new Taylor V-Class braced guitars (with video)

[N+1]

But the real purpose of this thread isn't to resurrect the old Taylor v Martin wars, but to discuss whether this new bracing makes a significant difference, and if so, what? Often the differences between guitars take some time to accommodate to. Because of our habitual responses, it's easy to focus on and listen for one thing, and in doing so, miss another. I found there was a lot to take in, in too short a time. (See #9 above.)

In my case: did it sound like a Taylor? Yes, it sounded like a K24 - that is, one of the loveliest guitars I know. But it sounded like a K24 with a purer and more musically coherent, beguiling treble sound. If I hadn't known it had V-bracing, I might have said it was the most musically 'liquid' K24 I'd heard. I have a reservation about what happened when I drove it hard, but I can easily believe that's the result of 'new guitar stiffness'. I'm interested enough to want to hear more.

[ruger9]

Digging the fretboard inlay!

[robrick]

Thanks for the video and review, nice playing, BTW!

The guitar sounds amazing.

But "better" is in the ear of the beholder.

I currently have four Taylor guitars I am very happy with, I don't play any venues where this new bracing would make a difference.

But kudos to Taylor for always stretching themselves and trying new things. My first Taylor had the Fishman onboard electronics, then Taylor had a new, better version, then an even NEWER and BETTER version, I finally learned it really is not about better, it is about preference. Currently I gig the guitar with the Fishman electronics, so go figure!

[MikeBmusic]

Originally Posted by Herb Hunter

A technical point that I think needs to be mentioned: If a Martin guitar ( or other brand) is tuned to E and a Taylor guitar (or other brand) is so tuned, neither will have a deeper bass than 82.41 Hz– the frequency of the low E – though one or the other guitar may have a louder low E.

That's what you'd think, but .... how do you explain 'boominess' of a guitar? And before you say that it is just the louder 80-100Hz frequency area, recently I had posted a mix of a song I'm working on and someone said there was a boominess 'below 80Hz' during part of the song when the acoustic guitar is the dominant instrument in the mix. I questioned that, of course. Then I put the track on a spectrum analyzer - and watched as a 'bloom' of sound from 60-80Hz appeared.

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by Looburst

I'm not diggin it. Sounded even thinner than normal Taylors sound to me and that's not good. They have missed a huge opportunity to me personally. They had a chance to make a guitar sound better and even bigger and they blew it.

It’s amazing you can evaluate it so well and be so certain Taylor “”blew it” when there’s so much background noise.

This review is sketchier than the video.

[printer2]

Originally Posted by Goodallboy

It’s amazing you can evaluate it so well and be so certain Taylor “”blew it” when there’s so much background noise.

This review is sketchier than the video.

Obviously the bottom end was not present enough to help mask the room noise.

[rct]

Originally Posted by MikeBmusic

That's what you'd think, but .... how do you explain 'boominess' of a guitar? And before you say that it is just the louder 80-100Hz frequency area, recently I had posted a mix of a song I'm working on and someone said there was a boominess 'below 80Hz' during part of the song when the acoustic guitar is the dominant instrument in the mix. I questioned that, of course. Then I put the track on a spectrum analyzer - and watched as a 'bloom' of sound from 60-80Hz appeared.

That'd more than likely be a digital picture of "farting out" as your heavy string was hit hard and hit the front end of whatever you were recording with.

rct

[zmf]

Originally Posted by Yendoggy

I agree with a lot of you. I’ve heard some and they still sound like Taylor’s.

If this is the case, it begs the question of how change in construction is required before guitars from a given builder start to sound like something different.

Seems that the change from X to V bracing is fairly radical. Why isn't there more change in tone?

[Goodallboy]

I can’t believe people are seriously evaluating this guitar based on that terrible recording.

I have no dog in this fight but it’s ludicrous to base anything on that noisy, cell phone video. I suspect the OP wasn’t submitting it as the definitive V-Brace product demo.

[Rmz76]

Great video. Even with the noise this was more impactful for me than most of the ones Taylor has put up. Seems to have more clang than I'd expect from a Taylor, maybe that's why some are saying "more Martin like". Looking forward to trying one next month when Fullers gets them in stock so I can form a solid opinion.

[rokdog49]

I can't believe people are casting aspersions at the Taylor sound.

For some reason,some just can't pass up the opportunity.

[Shades of Blue]

I will not post
I will not post
I will not post...

Quality of the video aside, I like the sound here.

[Jambi]

WELL that clinches it, It's DEFINITELY an acoustic guitar!

[Petty1818]

Tried the Builder's edition K14Ce tonight. First off, those of you expecting a major transformation will be disappointed. The guitar is still a Taylor and still has that Taylor tonality. I did quite like the guitar and found it to be warmer than most Taylor guitars that I have tried but it still had that signature high end. I think the overall hype of the sustain and intonation is a bit overblown. Yes it can sustain but it's not as mind blowing as Taylor makes it out to be. I compared it to one of the newer Martin standard series guitars and my conclusion was that neither is better, it's just a different flavour. I think the v class bracing is nice and I like it more for the warmth it brings but it's not a game changer IMO.

[zmf]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

I like it more for the warmth it brings but it's not a game changer IMO.

Warmth. That's close to soul. An incremental improvement.

Thanks.