Author Topic: 1.25.18  (Read 9661 times)

Engelmann

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: 1.25.18
« Reply #30 on: January 21, 2018, 08:57:36 AM »
WRT^^^
I notice a discernably lighter weight, lighter build, and tonal difference; this across the several that I've had in my hands.  The solid lining (purfling is aesthetic, and is part of the binding) likewise is a significant build difference vs "kerfed" lining in productions guitars, and these build differences go beyond just this.  These differences add up, and it is all immediately discernable, and doesn't take a guitar wonk to tell. Moreover, I've run into more than a few who hear and feel the likewise; just as there are who don't or can't tell the diff.  That Martin's Authentic line has any bearing on this discussion is akin to the effect of the price of tea in China.   Innumerable market forces play in the rise and fall of any product line, let alone a company, and discussing so in this venue adds nothing here.  So I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.  :)

Edward

How would you describe this "tonal difference"?

I'd say the lighter weight is due to not having electronics.

Engelmann

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: 1.25.18
« Reply #31 on: January 21, 2018, 08:59:41 AM »
take a look at the bracing on the small guitar on top of the builder reserve page, V shape

https://www.taylorguitars.com/guitars/builders-reserve

That looks like standard fan bracing to me.

Edward

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3029
Re: 1.25.18
« Reply #32 on: January 21, 2018, 11:29:17 AM »
Good morning Englemann,

I'm not here to defend or in any way advocate for RT's existence or lament its demise, nor to wax on about stellar build and superior tone.  I had initially made a simple statement about Taylor's bold move to open a wholly independent shop as testament to their innovation: that was all.  In ca. 2006 (IIRC), Taylor chose to go head-to-head against the so-called boutique industry and did so with five (IIRC) experienced luthiers, with their own supply, build specs, time frame, and company mantra; yes, an independent company that could walk across the street and borrow a cup of sugar, but remained under their own "company line" because they wanted to build something different from their production guitars.  Period.  One can opine about why they no longer exist, but one cannot opine about facts of their existence.

And those facts include marked differences in build process ...if you believe Taylor, that is, because if you don't believe their words then, then why believe anything they say.  Moreover, to claim that the lighter weight is simply because of the absence of electronics is, with respect, wholly misunderstanding everything they did.  Not only did they build with and without electronics, the build process deemed a lighter, more responsive instrument --again, to compete with what luthiers do in small-production builds, as opposed to production-line manufacturing.  Sorry, sir, if you didn't understand "purfling" and think the weight difference is due to a mere PCB and output jack etc, then you are, with respect, wholly uninformed on this matter.
Let us return to the thread at hand.

Edward


zeebow

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1548
Re: 1.25.18
« Reply #33 on: January 21, 2018, 02:59:27 PM »
1995 912C - englemann/eir
2009 xxxv-p - sitka/madagascar
2010 414ce - sitka/ovangkol (made on my wedding day!)
2011 914ce - cedar/eir
2014 martin 000-28 custom - adi/cocobolo
2017 BTO GC 12 fret - lutz/cocobolo
2019 BTO GC 12 fret - cedar/cocobolo
2019 sheeran w03 - cedar/santos rosewood
2019 lowden s35 12 fret - driftwood cedar/cocobolo
2020 lowden s35 12 fret alpine spruce/madagascar
2023 lowden wee wl-35 12 fret - driftwood cedar/madagascar
2023 martin 00-28 modern deluxe - sitka/eir

Engelmann

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: 1.25.18
« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2018, 04:25:48 AM »
I'm not here to defend or in any way advocate for RT's existence or lament its demise, nor to wax on about stellar build and superior tone.

I am not trying to say you were saying they had superior tone, but rather my opinion is that they simply do not have a different tone.  When R Taylor first came out, they had the GS bodyshape.  This was new and innovative.  But later this was reflected in the standard Taylor line, so the additional "bass response" difference in its tone is accounted for in the standard Taylor line.  Secondly, they had what was called modified X bracing (or something to that effect), which was also later incorporated into the standard Taylor line as CV bracing.  Therefore, the point I am making is, R Taylors later become obsolete, because there was no differentiation between their tone and the tone of regular Taylor guitars.

Quote
I had initially made a simple statement about Taylor's bold move to open a wholly independent shop as testament to their innovation: that was all.  In ca. 2006 (IIRC), Taylor chose to go head-to-head against the so-called boutique industry and did so with five (IIRC) experienced luthiers, with their own supply, build specs, time frame, and company mantra; yes, an independent company that could walk across the street and borrow a cup of sugar, but remained under their own "company line" because they wanted to build something different from their production guitars.  Period.  One can opine about why they no longer exist, but one cannot opine about facts of their existence.

I regularly see people pointing out the fact that R Taylor was a separate company, as if this somehow goes towards it being a small luthier shop, as opposed to simply a business decision to limit liability or reduce tax implications in the event the enterprise was not profitable.  It wasn't borrowing a cup of sugar, but rather borrowing the use of CNC machines to build the majority of the guitars.

Quote
And those facts include marked differences in build process ...if you believe Taylor, that is, because if you don't believe their words then, then why believe anything they say.  Moreover, to claim that the lighter weight is simply because of the absence of electronics is, with respect, wholly misunderstanding everything they did.  Not only did they build with and without electronics, the build process deemed a lighter, more responsive instrument --again, to compete with what luthiers do in small-production builds, as opposed to production-line manufacturing.  Sorry, sir, if you didn't understand "purfling" and think the weight difference is due to a mere PCB and output jack etc, then you are, with respect, wholly uninformed on this matter.

I don't dispute that there were differences in build process. If you read back to the original post, I dispute that there is any significant difference in tone, which was a point you avoided in your response. Having owned three R Taylors in the past, as well as playing several, and owning over a dozen Taylor guitars, if one asked me to describe the tone of a Taylor guitar, and then describe the tone of an R Taylor guitar, I could not describe them in a way that would differ compared to say if I was to describe the tone of a Taylor guitar versus the tone of a Collings guitar. I do not find R Taylors to be tonally different to regular Taylor guitars, and I would be interested to hear people who believe there is a difference to describe what that tonal difference is.

Edward

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3029
Re: 1.25.18
« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2018, 12:45:53 PM »
...I do not find R Taylors to be tonally different to regular Taylor guitars, and I would be interested to hear people who believe there is a difference to describe what that tonal difference is.

So you do not find guitar line "a" to be tonally different from guitar line "b" ...yet you still want to hear other people's opinions on what you've already concluded personally.  Very well: in which case may I suggest you create such a thread of your own.  I was not "avoiding" such a discussion because I had nothing to say, but simply redirecting because was not germane to the OP.  Start a thread ...and likewise, do a search as there are plenty of opinions to weigh and consider.

Edward

Engelmann

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: 1.25.18
« Reply #36 on: January 22, 2018, 03:40:29 PM »
So you do not find guitar line "a" to be tonally different from guitar line "b" ...yet you still want to hear other people's opinions on what you've already concluded personally.  Very well: in which case may I suggest you create such a thread of your own.  I was not "avoiding" such a discussion because I had nothing to say, but simply redirecting because was not germane to the OP.  Start a thread ...and likewise, do a search as there are plenty of opinions to weigh and consider.

Edward

Because you were the one who brought it up when you wrote:

I notice a discernably lighter weight, lighter build, and tonal difference; this across the several that I've had in my hands.

Yet, you have not been able to describe what this tonal difference you discernibly hear is. Neither can I. If it was so discernible, then you could probably say something along the lines or more clarity, or more bass, or something along those lines. Hence my point stands that there is no discernible difference and that the standard Taylor line now already tonally covers what R Taylor had (GS Shape, CV bracing). I enjoy R Taylors for their aesthetic, but I don't buy into the whole hey because of their narrow headstock and string angle plus solid kerflings is going to make it sound discernibly different to regular Taylors, because they were made with the same CNC machines, by the same employees who happened to be exemplary at doing what they were already doing for regular Taylor guitars on the production line (such as inlays).

Maybe you feel like I should start a new thread, but you were the one who brought the discussion to the table. Isn't the whole point of a forum to discuss things? So if you can't give your opinion on the discernible difference you hear in tone between regular Taylors and R Taylors, then you simply don't want to discuss the issue. Good for you. We're all Taylor fans, but if any other company had hyperbole, such as because it was built under a separate corporate entity therefore that somehow makes the guitar sounds different rather than because of other unrelated reasons (such as for tax planning or other legal purposes that are unrelated to building guitars), it should also be pointed out. Collings with their Traditional Series have discernibly different sounding guitars from their Standard Series. The same tonal signature, but discernibly more bass, scooped mids, and drier tone. But I don't hear any discernible difference between a Style 1 R Taylor in Cedar/Mahogany that I would hear in a GS Taylor Cedar/Mahogany.

Cindy

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1414
Re: 1.25.18
« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2018, 11:15:52 AM »

Because you were the one who brought it up when you wrote:

I notice a discernably lighter weight, lighter build, and tonal difference; this across the several that I've had in my hands.

Yet, you have not been able to describe what this tonal difference you discernibly hear is. Neither can I. If it was so discernible, then you could probably say something along the lines or more clarity, or more bass, or something along those lines. Hence my point stands that there is no discernible difference and that the standard Taylor line now already tonally covers what R Taylor had (GS Shape, CV bracing).

Maybe you feel like I should start a new thread, but you were the one who brought the discussion to the table. Isn't the whole point of a forum to discuss things? So if you can't give your opinion on the discernible difference you hear in tone between regular Taylors and R Taylors, then you simply don't want to discuss the issue. Good for you.

Hi Engelmann. Let's not make this a contest on who is better at discerning tone. Edward hears a tonal difference. Period. Two people may discern different qualities when hearing the exact same thing.

So let's move on from this and get back to ideas on what the new announcement from Taylor might be in just a few days. ;D Thanks for your understanding.
Cindy

DennisG

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Veni Vidi Velcro: I came, I saw, I stuck around
Re: 1.25.18
« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2018, 11:41:57 AM »

Because you were the one who brought it up when you wrote:

I notice a discernably lighter weight, lighter build, and tonal difference; this across the several that I've had in my hands.

Yet, you have not been able to describe what this tonal difference you discernibly hear is. Neither can I. If it was so discernible, then you could probably say something along the lines or more clarity, or more bass, or something along those lines. Hence my point stands that there is no discernible difference and that the standard Taylor line now already tonally covers what R Taylor had (GS Shape, CV bracing).

Maybe you feel like I should start a new thread, but you were the one who brought the discussion to the table. Isn't the whole point of a forum to discuss things? So if you can't give your opinion on the discernible difference you hear in tone between regular Taylors and R Taylors, then you simply don't want to discuss the issue. Good for you.

Hi Engelmann. Let's not make this a contest on who is better at discerning tone.

I didn't think he was trying to make this a contest -- he was asking for clarification.  Edward said that he could detect a tonal difference, and Engelmann asked him to describe that tonal difference.
-------------------------------------
'21 Goodall GC - master redwood/Macassar ebony
'18 Taylor K14-BE
'18 Taylor 114e
'21 Taylor GT Urban Ash
'15 Martin uke

TaylorGirl

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5761
  • 7 Mountain Dulcimers!
Re: 1.25.18
« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2018, 01:28:17 PM »
Maybe we should just get back to the "1.25.18" topic.  ;)
Susie
Taylors: 914 ○ K24ce ○ 414 ○ GSMeK+
Pono Guileles: Mango Baritone Deluxe ○ Mahogany Baritone

Have been finger-pickin' guitar since 1973!

wooglins

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 308
Re: 1.25.18
« Reply #40 on: January 23, 2018, 02:59:54 PM »
Logical evolution from Y bracing that was present in the R. Taylor line to Andy's take in the form of V Bracing.  R. Taylor had the Y brace (they called it asymmetrical bracing, and most of the R. Taylors I have experienced had this option).  Now it moves to the V brace.  By the way my R. Taylor with this bracing is fantastic.  I do think whatever they announce will be strongly centered around Andy Powers and V bracing.  I do not think it was a coincidence the current bracing is called AP bracing (advanced performance aka Andy Powers). 

I do agree this may be the largest innovation to date if the bracing proves to provide an improvement.  The patent is solid and would require any other builder using a similar design to license from Taylor.  Think about the X brace, anyone can use it.   

X Bracing, and Y Bracing


And a nice additional video showing some sweet high notes.
https://twitter.com/TaylorGuitars/status/955875667203170304
« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 03:59:50 PM by wooglins »

mgap

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5761
Re: 1.25.18
« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2018, 08:55:30 PM »
There has been a lot of talk on this thread about the big news will be in the bracing.  In my very humble opinion I feel bracing is not a major announcement.  Have the last two bracing changes been major NAMM announcements, or is it just because it is the now new big marketing scheme that makes this such an important announcement.  Possibly, all the hints given are just a diversion to make a bigger splash in another way.

Maybe I am wrong.

As of 1/24/17 I find that it is bracing that is the big news from Taylor.   So, once again I am wrong.  Boy it must be a big change in tone.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2018, 03:13:03 PM by MGap »
He who loses money, loses much; he who loses a friend, loses more; he who loses faith, loses all.

Guitarsan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1005
  • Keep calm and play on!
Re: 1.25.18
« Reply #42 on: January 24, 2018, 08:16:00 AM »
There has been a lot of talk on this thread about the big news will be in the bracing.  In my very humble opinion I feel bracing is not a major announcement.  Have the last two bracing changes been major NAMM announcements, or is it just because it is the now new big marketing scheme that makes this such an important announcement.  Possibly, all the hints given are just a diversion to make a bigger splash in another way.

Maybe I am wrong.


It'll be the bracing.
"The guitar is the perfect drug because when you play it you're in no pain, and when you put it down, there's no hangover." Paul Reed Smith

2021 Taylor 914ce LTD Sinker Redwood/EIR
2016 Taylor GS Mini-e Flamed Koa

DennisG

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Veni Vidi Velcro: I came, I saw, I stuck around
Re: 1.25.18
« Reply #43 on: January 24, 2018, 01:26:21 PM »
There has been a lot of talk on this thread about the big news will be in the bracing.  In my very humble opinion I feel bracing is not a major announcement.  Have the last two bracing changes been major NAMM announcements, or is it just because it is the now new big marketing scheme that makes this such an important announcement.  Possibly, all the hints given are just a diversion to make a bigger splash in another way.


I agree with this.  For the vast majority of guitar players, a new bracing pattern would be a big yawn.  I've got a feeling it's something entirely different ... and more compelling than the rearranging of wood strips.  But I enjoy all the speculation.
-------------------------------------
'21 Goodall GC - master redwood/Macassar ebony
'18 Taylor K14-BE
'18 Taylor 114e
'21 Taylor GT Urban Ash
'15 Martin uke

jjrpilot-admin

  • UTGF Owner
  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
Re: 1.25.18
« Reply #44 on: January 24, 2018, 02:03:23 PM »
There has been a lot of talk on this thread about the big news will be in the bracing.  In my very humble opinion I feel bracing is not a major announcement.  Have the last two bracing changes been major NAMM announcements, or is it just because it is the now new big marketing scheme that makes this such an important announcement.  Possibly, all the hints given are just a diversion to make a bigger splash in another way.


I agree with this.  For the vast majority of guitar players, a new bracing pattern would be a big yawn.  I've got a feeling it's something entirely different ... and more compelling than the rearranging of wood strips.  But I enjoy all the speculation.

Taylor will announce tomorrow that it will be merging with Martin Guitars.   :o ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

But seriously, I'm pretty pumped about what it'll be tomorrow!
Col 1:15 "that in everything He might be preeminent."
2016 324 (Mahogany top/Tasmanian Blackwood b&s)
2017 Gibson J-45 Standard