New Taylor 500 Series

[Glennwillow]

Originally Posted by scotchnspeed

Respectfully (coffee in hand - this is s great conversation ), I think even a cursory search shows this is not the case. Genuine mahogany is not endangered, it is readily available, farmed, and widely available on lutherie sites at a low price point. The point is that while even still available (still considered "high output" though on schedule II) and cheap compared to rosewoods, one can still get "alternatives" for even cheaper - khaya, sapele, "urban ironbark", and taz blackwood. It is simply an easier, though not complete, narrative scare about general wood availability that couples well with increased profits.

Btw - all for alternative woods, but don't mislead folks (intentionally or through silence) when you want to introduce something new. I think people (like the poster above) have reason to be cynical, as actions like this series are far easier to embrace when the narrative is not so strained. Honesty wins the day.

Having worked my last 43 years for a manufacturing company, and 38 of those years as their chief engineer, I understand the desire of every company to find ways to increase profits. To state the obvious: profit is absolutely necessary and what keeps a company in business and keeps people employed.

I can certainly believe that Taylor's use of urban ironbark is at least partially motivated by increasing company profits. It's their job to look for ways to increase profits.

Maybe I am too indoctrinated in what makes successful businesses work, but I don't see a problem or any kind of conflict in looking for higher profits. That's just how business is supposed to work. Even if increased profits is the prime motivator for Taylor, I wouldn't expect their marketing people to tell their customers that they should consider buying the latest Taylor 500 guitar of spruce/ironbark because it will aid Taylor in increasing profits. Advertising people are going to tell us that this new combination is great for us. That's their job.

In the end, customers have to decide what they want to spend their money on. We've all been inundated with advertising since we were little kids watching cartoons on Saturday morning. We should know by now how to make our own decisions.

I guess one choice is to become cynical. But I see that choice as the negative one. The positive choice is to recognize that this new model may be something one of our fellow guitar players might be interested in, even in spite of the fact that Taylor might make a little extra profit. It might even advance the art a little bit. Even if there is plenty of mahogany around today, there may not be tomorrow. Finding alternative and acceptable tonewoods seems like it would be a good idea to me.

I'm pretty sure I'm not interested in this new model. I've got all the guitars a reasonable person could ever want. I'm just sort of fascinated by another Taylor development and puzzled by all the negative reactions. I don't see any dishonesty in this particular marketing compaign, just normal business practices. I'm glad they are not telling us that urban ironbark improves the guitar's intonation.

- Glenn

[scotchnspeed]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

Having worked my last 43 years for a manufacturing company, and 38 of those years as their chief engineer, I understand the desire of every company to find ways to increase profits. To state the obvious: profit is absolutely necessary and what keeps a company in business and keeps people employed.

I can certainly believe that Taylor's use of urban ironbark is at least partially motivated by increasing company profits. It's their job to look for ways to increase profits.

Maybe I am too indoctrinated in what makes successful businesses work, but I don't see a problem or any kind of conflict in looking for higher profits. That's just how business is supposed to work. Even if increased profits is the prime motivator for Taylor, I wouldn't expect their marketing people to tell their customers that they should consider buying the latest Taylor 500 guitar of spruce/ironbark because it will aid Taylor in increasing profits. Advertising people are going to tell us that this new combination is great for us. That's their job.

In the end, customers have to decide what they want to spend their money on. We've all been inundated with advertising since we were little kids watching cartoons on Saturday morning. We should know by now how to make our own decisions.

I guess one choice is to become cynical. But I see that choice as the negative one. The positive choice is to recognize that this new model may be something one of our fellow guitar players might be interested in, even in spite of the fact that Taylor might make a little extra profit. It might even advance the art a little bit. Even if there is plenty of mahogany around today, there may not be tomorrow. Finding alternative and acceptable tonewoods seems like it would be a good idea to me.

I'm pretty sure I'm not interested in this new model. I've got all the guitars a reasonable person could ever want. I'm just sort of fascinated by another Taylor development and puzzled by all the negative reactions. I don't see any dishonesty in this particular marketing compaign, just normal business practices.

- Glenn

100% on your notes on profit, and I'll even raise you one and say that activity is necessary! Good for Taylor on that front!

It's just that it is on the back of premises that are less than accurate, and Taylor for more than others is OK with that opacity. I do not think that is cynicism, it's disciplined observation. I don't like being duped (even in a small way for a luxury item - I get that it is not life critical).

As a counter example - many companies have been using alternatives for just as long, if not longer, but are much more transparent about it. Take Jean Larrivee, the undisputed king of tonewood knowledge. He switched to khaya for his -05 series because he said the quality was preferred by him (note - not for LACK of availability) and he thought it looked better. The price for the quality he was getting was par with genuine mahogany, so no apparent price issue and no strained argument about sustainability (because there was none...).

Larrivee regularly unleashes alternative wood variants while maintaining the standard -09 and -05, etc series foundation. And they do it because they love diversity, tone, wood for wood's sake, and their customer base! No blaming costs, availability, or sustainability.

Martin will (annoyingly) say "select hardwood" - but at least you know they value availability over a story about a marginal or absent difference in the wood they use.

It seems Taylor wants us to believe -500 is not anything special other than a slot in the catalog. Thats fine - I just think it is worthwhile to know over time "Series X" stands for XYZ tone and ABC woods as a baseline. However, we are now lead to believe mahogany is not available (it is), expensive (it is not, at least for this level of guitar), "urban ironbark" is an actual taxonomic specie (it is not), and it is sustainable (it is not by definition - these are dead and removed trees from a street in El Cajon).

Also, ask yourself a few years from now - "What does a Taylor -500, -600, -800 series sound like?" The answer is a resoundingly "one cannot know." each of these has changed so dramatically that trying to capture an answer has become meaningless. That's OK also - but consider this answer is quite simple with other brands - perhaps that is a marketing problem they should take under consideration. Now that series mean little, the question is simply "what look and price point do you like."

I know - many/most of you think I am making too much of this, and that is fine, but I find it hard to believe that more folks don't detest this kind of storytelling. I will repeat my bottom line - EXPERIMENT and release new wood combos, but don't do it under false pretexts greenwashed (both monetarily and environmentally) to get that profit that is so very honorable. Do a limited run/new series, but let's keep it all in the good faith arena.

At the end of the day, I'm glad they are here. I just wish they were more focused on transparency, excellence, and honesty like they were in the '90s.

Now get off my lawn!!!

[Bjbny]

Originally Posted by scotchnspeed

100% on your notes on profit, and I'll even raise you one and say that activity is necessary! Good for Taylor on that front!

It's just that it is on the back of premises that are less than accurate, and Taylor for more than others is OK with that opacity. I do not think that is cynicism, it's disciplined observation. I don't like being duped (even in a small way for a luxury item - I get that it is not life critical).

As a counter example - many companies have been using alternatives for just as long, if not longer, but are much more transparent about it. Take Jean Larrivee, the undisputed king of tonewood knowledge. He switched to khaya for his -05 series because he said the quality was preferred by him (note - not for LACK of availability) and he thought it looked better. The price for the quality he was getting was par with genuine mahogany, so no apparent price issue and no strained argument about sustainability (because there was none...).

Larrivee regularly unleashes alternative wood variants while maintaining the standard -09 and -05, etc series foundation. And they do it because they love diversity, tone, wood for wood's sake, and their customer base! No blaming costs, availability, or sustainability.

Martin will (annoyingly) say "select hardwood" - but at least you know they value availability over a story about a marginal or absent difference in the wood they use.

It seems Taylor wants us to believe -500 is not anything special other than a slot in the catalog. Thats fine - I just think it is worthwhile to know over time "Series X" stands for XYZ tone and ABC woods as a baseline. However, we are now lead to believe mahogany is not available (it is), expensive (it is not, at least for this level of guitar), "urban ironbark" is an actual taxonomic specie (it is not), and it is sustainable (it is not by definition - these are dead and removed trees from a street in El Cajon).

Also, ask yourself a few years from now - "What does a Taylor -500, -600, -800 series sound like?" The answer is a resoundingly "one cannot know." each of these has changed so dramatically that trying to capture an answer has become meaningless. That's OK also - but consider this answer is quite simple with other brands - perhaps that is a marketing problem they should take under consideration. Now that series mean little, the question is simply "what look and price point do you like."

I know - many/most of you think I am making too much of this, and that is fine, but I find it hard to believe that more folks don't detest this kind of storytelling. I will repeat my bottom line - EXPERIMENT and release new wood combos, but don't do it under false pretexts greenwashed (both monetarily and environmentally) to get that profit that is so very honorable. Do a limited run/new series, but let's keep it all in the good faith arena.

At the end of the day, I'm glad they are here. I just wish they were more focused on transparency, excellence, and honesty like they were in the '90s.

Now get off my lawn!!!

You are certainly within your rights to dislike Taylor’s marketing and how they choose to change how they designate the various guitars within their guitar line, but I strongly disagree that they are misleading people or acting under “false pretexts”. In the new issue of Wood and Steel, they talk all about their ‘mahogony migration” very plainly. They are not misleading people.

As for any cost differential between mahogony and “Urban Ironbark”, I have no idea what the actual costs are. In an interview, they noted that there is not an established distribution channel for Urban Ironbark, so that adds to the cost. That said, regardless of the actual price of the wood, they will only ultimately be able to charge a premium price for this wood over any meaningful time period if the public agrees that the guitars made with this tone wood are worth a premium price.

[keithb7]

I treated myself to a new 514ce Ironbark in December. I love how it looks, plays and sounds. The feel and playability is fantastic. The overall finish of the 514ce is outstanding. A great looking guitar. The acoustic tone and sound is tops for me. Where I am struggling a bit is with the electric sound. I have been researching the ES2, trying different suggestions. I struggled to pull the tones I want from the ES2. It's certainly different sounding than what I am used to. Perhaps my ear is tuned to the piezo pick-up that is in my other acoustic that I have been playing for years? I acquired an LR Baggs M1 Active sound-hole pickup. For my ear it seems to sound much better than the ES2. I will admit am still discovering acoustic guitar tones. Developing my ear to acoustic sounds after decades of playing/performing with electric guitars and amps.

I do notice when I am playing my 514ce in my live band environment, gigging, I hear quite a stark difference in tone. My bandmate has the Fishman Flex piezo pickup in his acoustic guitar. My Taylor sounds less bright. Somewhat muted mids maybe? I am having trouble describing the tonal differences. I do run my Taylor into an LR Baggs PARA DI. I've been tweaking the signal. By itself, through my PARA DI, then into my Fishman Loudbox mini, my 514ce sounds fantastic. The same setup live onstage, playing with my bandmate, the tonal difference between our 2 guitar is surprising. Not bad, just different. Very different. It could just be that what I expect to hear, needs to be re-programmed. I am happy that our two guitars are not too similar in sound. I think the difference makes our band sound better overall. Two similar sounding guitars could be dull.

The sonic differences I am hearing could be related to the urban ironbark wood in my 514ce compared to his guitar. His guitar has a sitka spruce double top, back and sides claim to be Walnut with Basswood core.

I have read a lot of good things about the LR Baggs anthem series pick up system. I am also tempted to try it. It has a piezo under the bridge and a mic in the body. You can blend to two infinitely to dial-in the tone you want. Sounds like a pretty sweet option.

Overall, I am very happy with my Taylor 514ce. It looks, sounds and plays extremely well. I suggest that pick-ups and amplified sound is a finicky matter of personal taste. A rabbit hole. Yet come to think of it, all acoustics and their pick-ups often lead many of us down a rabbit hole! Lol.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RnD...usp=share_link

[keithb7]

I spent some time noodling with my 514ce recently. All guitar parts here are my 514. The lead part was recorded with a condenser mic. The two rhythm guitar parts, is through an LR Baggs M1A. Not a great example but gives some idea on the tone though pick up an mic.

[sinistral]

Originally Posted by keithb7

I spent some time noodling with my 514ce recently. All guitar parts here are my 514. The lead part was recorded with a condenser mic. The two rhythm guitar parts, is through an LR Baggs M1A. Not a great example but gives some idea on the tone though pick up an mic.

That was really nicely done! Great playing and great arrangement.

[jricc]

Originally Posted by keithb7

I spent some time noodling with my 514ce recently. All guitar parts here are my 514. The lead part was recorded with a condenser mic. The two rhythm guitar parts, is through an LR Baggs M1A. Not a great example but gives some idea on the tone though pick up an mic.

Thanks for sharing this demo Keith. The 514 is a real nice Taylor.

[DetroitDave]

Originally Posted by keithb7

I spent some time noodling with my 514ce recently. All guitar parts here are my 514. The lead part was recorded with a condenser mic. The two rhythm guitar parts, is through an LR Baggs M1A. Not a great example but gives some idea on the tone though pick up an mic.

Your playing makes the 514 sound wonderful. Thanks for sharing.