1990's Taylor 914's, How Do They Compare To the Newer 914's?

[wisedennis]

Originally Posted by blex

I don't have the 914 but a '95 912-C and it is the mutt's nutts. The details and finishing are top-notch too... better than the later Taylors I have (XXX & XXXV).

Does the '95 912c sound significantly better?

thanks!
Dennis

[groove311]

Originally Posted by wisedennis

Hi, would u say NT neck is a pro for new 914's?

some folks believe NT neck is worsening the sound quality.

-Dennis

well about NT I don't think it's a big deal cos Martin, Goodall, Santa Cruz don't have NT.. please correct me if I'm wrong.

Even the high end Ryan, Froggy Bottom etc don't have that...

[Jarvis]

Here is a shoot out I did with a 1996 against a 2011 model

Listen and let me know which you prefer

http://youtu.be/okjRQKrqGeE

Cheers Jarvis

[PTC Bernie]

It might be interesting to post this over on the UTGF and see what kind of replies you get.

[Herb Hunter]

Originally Posted by wisedennis

Hi, would u say NT neck is a pro for new 914's?

some folks believe NT neck is worsening the sound quality.

-Dennis

Those that believe the NT neck adversely affects sound quality believe so probably out of ignorance. There are many factors that affect sound quality as evidenced by trying out two examples of the same model guitar. Play two 914s made of wood from the same tree and they will not sound the same even though Taylors have a deserved reputation for greater consistency. Given that fact, how can anyone be certain that a difference in tone is due to an improvement in neck design construction or some other factor?

The NT is a significant improvement over traditional neck designs.

Here is an old article explaining the NT technology:

http://www.frets.com/FretsPages/Luth...t/99joint.html

[mds08]

I played a couple of 914 in the past and one a few months back at a Taylor Road Show that was amazing. That 914 played very well, I almost bought it. I kinda kick myself for not doing it but the time was not good. I have a 2010 910 that sounds and plays wonderful to my ears. I still want one but I must wait a while. I did play a used 314 at a pawn shop that was pretty impressive and one of the best Taylors I ever played. It was road hard and put up wet kinda thing. My friend boght it and it looks like 50 of playin on that thing. I offer to buy it everytime we do some picking. Never played an older high end Taylor, but I would buy one if I had the loot. Go for it. I wonder if Taylor can convert an old one to the new neck style.

[OleGibby58]

I owned three 90's Taylor dreads & one newer NT one and to me the NT neck was a serious 'downer' = I do not like the NT profile or feel.

Just my take & my hand & I am talking dreads, not 14- series. But I'd take a mid-90s Taylor over any NT example of the same persuasion.

[wisedennis]

anymore advice?

[David Chavez]

If it aged well I'd say the 1997 would sound the best! This guy explains the diffrences etc. And I don't believe the 2012's would age as well as the golden age 90's taylors. IMO Hope it helps cheers!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okjRQKrqGeE

[Herb Hunter]

Originally Posted by OleGibby58

I owned three 90's Taylor dreads & one newer NT one and to me the NT neck was a serious 'downer' = I do not like the NT profile or feel.

Just my take & my hand & I am talking dreads, not 14- series. But I'd take a mid-90s Taylor over any NT example of the same persuasion.

Since the NT profile is the same as the profile of its predecessor, I wonder what it was about the the feel of the NT neck that you find objectionable. The difference between an NT neck and the older ones has to do with how the neck is attached and how the fretboard is supported, such that a player asked to identify an NT neck and a pre-NT neck by feel alone shouldn't be able to consistently pick out the NT neck.

Depending on how old some of your guitars are, they may have been hand sanded which may have resulted in slight variations in the thickness of the neck. Taylor offers a slim-carve NT neck intended to match those necks that after hand sanding, ended up slimmer than the profile the sander was trying to achieve.

[Herb Hunter]

Originally Posted by David Chavez

If it aged well I'd say the 1997 would sound the best! This guy explains the diffrences etc. And I don't believe the 2012's would age as well as the golden age 90's taylors. IMO Hope it helps cheers!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okjRQKrqGeE

Why do you believe that a 2012 guitar wouldn't ultimately age as well as a 1997 model? I have Taylor grand auditorium guitars made in 1996, 1997 (pre-NT neck) and 2003 (NT neck; Standard II, forward shifted bracing with relief rout) and can't see how one would expect the wood to age differently as a function of the year the guitar was made.

A very significant difference between the two 914 guitars in the video, which ultimately makes them incomparable, is that one had a sitka spruce top and the other has an Engelmann spruce top. Also, I feel compelled to point out that the 1996 914 in the video, technically speaking, had a neck made from three pieces of wood also, there being two pieces of wood added to the headstock to make it sufficiently wide.

[wisedennis]

Originally Posted by OleGibby58

I owned three 90's Taylor dreads & one newer NT one and to me the NT neck was a serious 'downer' = I do not like the NT profile or feel.

Just my take & my hand & I am talking dreads, not 14- series. But I'd take a mid-90s Taylor over any NT example of the same persuasion.

How is the feeling different?

thanks!

Dennis

[AnthonyatSNB]

Interesting comparison of 914 models ten years apart in production here :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okjRQKrqGeE

[Jim]

I am a firm believer in the statement that the 1995 - 1999, or maybe 2000 model Taylors are their golden age. In addition to the points that have already been made about Taylor's cheapening of their entire line of guitars to keep profits up and guitars affordable, the 1990s ones are made from woods that I see as being consistently higher quality than the current woods used. In the past 15 years the quality of tonewoods available to Taylor from the international wood market has declined as the best trees get cut and lesser quality ones are all that are left. The current woods are still excellent, but the woods that used to be available were even better. Also, while it does not affect the sound, the 1990s Taylors were better protected with 5-ply cases that were actually made by Taylor at their El Cajon factory where they made their guitars. NT necks are another difference. Some people buy into the notion that they are better, but I am not sure I am ready to drink that Kool-Aid. Yes, they are easier to reset, but the original Taylor design was also bolt on and is not much more difficult to reset if it needs it, and I have three Taylors from the 1990s and none of them is showing any signs of ever needing a reset. So, the NTs can be reset in 5 minutes, while the original Taylor design takes something like 20 minutes. I don't see the hugeness of an improvement. What I do see is that as part of the NT design, Taylor stopped carving their necks out of a single block of high quality mahogany and switched to glueing together three pieces of mahogany - head, neck, and heel, to save money by getting more necks out of the same amount of wood. Yes it works well, but with those extra glue joints you have a more inexpensive guitar, visible joints, and less ability to vibrate because of the extra glue in the wood. YMMV, but for me I see the original Taylor design of the 1990s as the higher quality guitar.

[Herb Hunter]

Originally Posted by Jim

I am a firm believer in the statement that the 1995 - 1999, or maybe 2000 model Taylors are their golden age. In addition to the points that have already been made about Taylor's cheapening of their entire line of guitars to keep profits up and guitars affordable, the 1990s ones are made from woods that I see as being consistently higher quality than the current woods used. In the past 15 years the quality of tonewoods available to Taylor from the international wood market has declined as the best trees get cut and lesser quality ones are all that are left. The current woods are still excellent, but the woods that used to be available were even better. Also, while it does not affect the sound, the 1990s Taylors were better protected with 5-ply cases that were actually made by Taylor at their El Cajon factory where they made their guitars. NT necks are another difference. Some people buy into the notion that they are better, but I am not sure I am ready to drink that Kool-Aid. Yes, they are easier to reset, but the original Taylor design was also bolt on and is not much more difficult to reset if it needs it, and I have three Taylors from the 1990s and none of them is showing any signs of ever needing a reset. So, the NTs can be reset in 5 minutes, while the original Taylor design takes something like 20 minutes. I don't see the hugeness of an improvement. What I do see is that as part of the NT design, Taylor stopped carving their necks out of a single block of high quality mahogany and switched to glueing together three pieces of mahogany - head, neck, and heel, to save money by getting more necks out of the same amount of wood. Yes it works well, but with those extra glue joints you have a more inexpensive guitar, visible joints, and less ability to vibrate because of the extra glue in the wood. YMMV, but for me I see the original Taylor design of the 1990s as the higher quality guitar.

As an owner of Taylor guitars made in 1996, 1997 and 2003 and with access to the newest guitars, I couldn't disagree more.

Any structural engineer will immediately appreciate the improvement that the NT design affords without consuming any flavored drink mixes.

The notion that the added glue used to assemble an NT neck adversely affects tone is just that, an unsubstantiated notion. We have you claiming the glue is a detriment to tone and we have the contradictory claim made by the others that the glue of a dove tail neck enhances tone.