Unofficial Taylor Guitar Forum - UTGF
Taylor Acoustic & Electric Guitars => Taylor Acoustic & Electric Guitars => Topic started by: Jersey tuning on February 09, 2014, 08:44:55 AM
-
Age does wonderful things for the tone of a guitar. But a series of improvements such as extended to the 800 series of Taylors makes a compelling argument for owning the latest and greatest. If you could buy one or the other-- say a 1994 814 vs a 2014 814, which would it be?
-
If you had said a 2014 800 series or 1998, I would've gone with the 1998.
With what you offered I went with the new 2014 800 series :)
GoManGo...
-
If you had said a 2014 800 series or 1998, I would've gone with the 1998.
With what you offered I went with the new 2014 800 series :)
GoManGo...
Tell me why the 1998 vs the 1994. In the meantime I will modify the poll to offer a more generally "aged" option
-
The response so far is impressive, considering few if any have played the 2014! The influence of Wood and Steel...(a cynic might say Taylor hype)
-
The influence of Wood and Steel...(a cynic might say Taylor hype)
If I wanted to skew the results of a survey, that's exactly what I'd say.
I've played the new 814, and I found it to produce a more balanced tone than my 3-year-old 814 -- more presence in the midrange, more punch in the bass.
-
The influence of Wood and Steel...(a cynic might say Taylor hype)
If I wanted to skew the results of a survey, that's exactly what I'd say.
I've played the new 814, and I found it to produce a more balanced tone than my 3-year-old 814 -- more presence in the midrange, more punch in the bass.
culpa me. Good info.
-
After playing all the 8's on display in El Cajon, the thing that stood out the most to me was the mid range responce. Never cared much for rosewood bodied guitars, until that day. Must have picked up the GC 5 times while I was there. I voted for the new one.
-
If you had said a 2014 800 series or 1998, I would've gone with the 1998.
With what you offered I went with the new 2014 800 series :)
GoManGo...
Tell me why the 1998 vs the 1994. In the meantime I will modify the poll to offer a more generally "aged" option
probably because there was no "official" 814ce model in 94
http://www.elderly.com/items/20U-14170.htm (http://www.elderly.com/items/20U-14170.htm)
http://www.elderly.com/vintage/items/20U-15041.htm (http://www.elderly.com/vintage/items/20U-15041.htm)
the 814c was available in 96
http://www.elderly.com/vintage/items/20U-12066.htm (http://www.elderly.com/vintage/items/20U-12066.htm)
& 97
http://elderly.com/vintage/items/20U-13721.htm (http://elderly.com/vintage/items/20U-13721.htm)
& the 814ce in 98 - this is a 99
http://www.elderly.com/vintage/items/20U-13448.htm (http://www.elderly.com/vintage/items/20U-13448.htm)
with changes being made from 94 to 13, such as UV finish, NT neck with fingerjoint headstock
ES, grover tuners to ping-sourced Taylors, rosette, fretboard inlay, standard II bracing, 9V ES
maple binding, scarfjoint headstock, CV bracing & ES1, not mention body shape, depth, along
with different standard nut widths & scale lengths on the non X14s models & the X16 & X18s,
just by going from one year to other, with just one choice, there may be fewer members here
that have played 94 800 series models than there are that have played the current 800s :-\
with the options listeds the results of the poll have no choice but to be skewed, imho, &
if one cannot select what would be their first choice & is relegated to second chance,
what if one would rather not, or does not intend to, own a 800 series, or if they intend
to add a 14 800 model to the older 800 series they already own, rather than one or the other ?
does the 94 option mean as close to a NOS "unplayed" model as possible
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Taylor-XXRS-guitar-and-case-near-PERFECT-never-gigged-/251446233930? (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Taylor-XXRS-guitar-and-case-near-PERFECT-never-gigged-/251446233930?)
& does the aged option mean played to within in an inch of it's life "rode hard & put up wet" ?
i have the latter, but it's 5 years, chronologically, older than 94 & it has eons more physical age on it
after the poll has been altered, a member cannot go back & change their vote, so it is what it is -
if you don't mind my asking, please tell me why the 2 choices span a 20 year difference only ?
-
I tend to prefer new guitars to used guitars for the simple reason that new guitars don't need neck work or fret work due to wear. The notion that old guitars sound better JUST because they are old is a common belief but I have never seen/heard anything that actually verifies that guitars sound better or "open up" as they get older. Sure, old guitars that were constructed better sound-wise sound better than new guitars that aren't but I have never seen any real evidence that your 20 year old Taylor (or Martin, or Collings, or Silvertone) sounds better now than it did then. (Saying, "I know it sounds better," is no proof that it sounds better).
Yeah, I know, folks are going to disagree but one would think in all these years of such claims, that someone would have made a quality recording of a new instrument and done the same recording over some years to prove the claim…but nada… ;)
-
I tend to prefer new guitars to used guitars for the simple reason that new guitars don't need neck work or fret work due to wear. The notion that old guitars sound better JUST because they are old is a common belief but I have never seen/heard anything that actually verifies that guitars sound better or "open up" as they get older. Sure, old guitars that were constructed better sound-wise sound better than new guitars that aren't but I have never seen any real evidence that your 20 year old Taylor (or Martin, or Collings, or Silvertone) sounds better now than it did then. (Saying, "I know it sounds better," is no proof that it sounds better).
Yeah, I know, folks are going to disagree but one would think in all these years of such claims, that someone would have made a quality recording of a new instrument and done the same recording over some years to prove the claim…but nada… ;)
recording technology, & likely one's hearing, has also changed, possibly significantly, in the past 20 years &
to have recorded "proof" to appease someone other than owner is unnecessary, imho, because what
really matters is whether the owner of the guitar is happy with the tonal change over time or not -
i am, so i am in the disagreement camp, whether the guitar has been played over a period of time or not & for me
one of my guitars, it took a year's time & one of my friends that knows the guitar & shares similar preferences in
tone agrees also, not that there's validation needed, but for me it was confirmation that i wasn't just "hearing things"
ymmv
-
This poll was unfortunately not thought out (by me) adequately enough to yield a truly satisfying result, but nevertheless the responses are interesting and informative; the criticisms are well placed and will stimulate us all to widen our Taylor horizons. Just as guitar player skill sets vary widely on this forum, so varies our members' knowledge of--and interest in-- the history and development of Taylor guitars. Some just wanna play, others wish to explore every nuance of the Taylor experience, and many of us fall somewhere in between.
-
This poll was unfortunately not thought out (by me) adequately enough to yield a truly satisfying result, but nevertheless the responses are interesting and informative; the criticisms are well placed and will stimulate us all to widen our Taylor horizons. Just as guitar player skill sets vary widely on this forum, so varies our members' knowledge of--and interest in-- the history and development of Taylor guitars. Some just wanna play, others wish to explore every nuance of the Taylor experience, and many of us fall somewhere in between.
Think it through carefully and let me know if you want the poll redone. We mods have the ability to add more (or delete) options and to also allow members the option to change their vote. If you want more than 3 options, write out what you want and it can be edited.
-
This poll was unfortunately not thought out (by me) adequately enough to yield a truly satisfying result, but nevertheless the responses are interesting and informative; the criticisms are well placed and will stimulate us all to widen our Taylor horizons. Just as guitar player skill sets vary widely on this forum, so varies our members' knowledge of--and interest in-- the history and development of Taylor guitars. Some just wanna play, others wish to explore every nuance of the Taylor experience, and many of us fall somewhere in between.
Think it through carefully and let me know if you want the poll redone. We mods have the ability to add more (or delete) options and to also allow members the option to change their vote. If you want more than 3 options, write out what you want and it can be edited.
Thanks, Cindy, but this research is not being used for a PhD dissertation. Just some informal musings; if people found this thread to be useful, or at least entertaining, so much the better. If not., better luck next time.
-
Okay...no problem. :)
-
I've recently played 2 of the new prototype 814's and a First Edition 814ce. All 3 were excellent with solid mid-range and low end. Big improvement. I wish I didn't have to settle for the maple neck binding as my only choice to get the new updated 800 series. Can't BTO the new bracing or thin finish just yet.
Of the "older" Taylor's, I own a 1997 510, 1998 710e and recently sold a 1997 614GB Gerry Beckley. I have never had a 1994 as I didn't care for the Taylor square shouldered dreadnought style from that era. In those years that was my bodystyle of choice, kind'a still is.
While I think the aging process of my guitars, especially the 1998, has contributed immensely to the mellowing and opening up of the overall sound... it's 's the "feel"... or playability, if that's a word, that made me vote 1998 if that was a choice. Something about those hand finished necks and perhaps how they work with the fretboard radius from that era that does it for me. The new necks are fine and feel great, but my point of reference is my 1998 because of all the Taylor's I've owned, that is my personal benchmark.
I'd love for Taylor to come out with a limited production "Traditional Series" with a new Taylor square headstock. Offer this "TS"series in a 12 and 14 fret dreadnought, new slope D body 12 or 14 fret, GA and GC with the new bracing and thin finish. An "Aged Tone" top option would would really shake things up! Now were talkin'....
Great poll BTW.
Tom
-
...But a series of improvements such as extended to the 800 series of Taylors makes a compelling argument for owning the latest and greatest....
And therein lays the big quandary: does a factory-stated "improvement" translate to an improvement you the individual would personally recognize and appreciate? There is no clear answer for this, except for each individual player confronted with each individual instrument before him make that particular comparison.
All I know is I have in the past succumed to the "tonal upgrade" bandwagon and have long since jumped off. It's easy to do when you think about it: take a company you do trust, mix in great ad copy and rich phots, add in positive feedback from the web (a far more influential factor than gear shopping before all this blog access), and one risks being in a continual state of periodic tonal inadequacy at every product improvement.
Personally, I prefer to look at it this way: new innovations in guitar processes simply offer us more to choose from, not "improved" guitars to choose from. As always, the "better" guitar is the one whose tone makes you melt into the instrument ...and devise ways of justifying the expense. ;)
So as a long-winded response to the OP: it depends ...lemme try em back to back :D
Edward
-
the earlier Taylor headstocks that were slightly smaller than the current ones looked pretty 8) , imho -
if the design were to be reshaped somewhat, i'm hoping it doesn't turn out like this
(http://breedlovemusic.com/images/uploads/instruments/LEGACY-DREAD_HSF.jpg)
the original Taylor artist series had a different font for the logo & the inlay was oriented like this
(http://breedlovemusic.com/images/uploads/instruments/PREMIER-CONCERT-MAHOGANY-HSF.jpg)
not to crazy about that either :-\
i don't think Taylor is looking to make guitars that sound like the ones made in 94, or 84 or 74, just as ford is
not about to go back to the previous styles of the mustang, as the15 models promise to have better power,
handling & fuel economy than models as recent as the current one & seeing that the V6 & 4 cylinder models will
have more power than the 96-01 V8 cobra mustangs, i see little reason to try to "go back" with a new "retro" model
tradition has it's place & whether it seen as being "better" as other builders feel it was, or just "different", if i'm looking
for a more "traditional" tone, i'll look for an older guitar or at another brand, as i'd rather a Taylor sound like, well, a Taylor
-
Ford made big money over the past couple of years with the retro '70's style Mustangs. Retro sells. Old look...new engineering. The Mustang GT, the 2012 - 2013 Boss 302, the Shelby American line of Shelby GT350 & GT500 and all of those independent 427 AC Cobra replica car companies are all designed with the past in mind and selling very well. New coupled with old. The all new 2015 Mustang still maintains major styling cues from its heritage. Ford is sweating bullets with this car as it must be a success for them. Much is riding on it. If Ford could bring back the sound of the past, the sound of their 427 side oiler or a 429SCJ in a current Mustang they would in an instant and it would sell like hotcakes and they know it, but they can't, because of the sound restrictions of the smaller engines bore and stroke. Thats why the aftermarket exhaust system companies thrive right now as they attempt to duplicate the muscle car V8 sound. I can talk cars all day.
Back to guitars...
Taylor Guitars has currently re-defined the sound of their new 800 Series under the guidance of Andy Powers. These new 800's are the best sounding 800's Taylor has produced in my opinion. Will the rest of the line change sound too? I think if Andy Powers and Bob Taylor were satisfied with the Taylor sound no such effort would be made. So a Taylor sounding like, well, a Taylor has new meaning. Taylor is changing their sound because they are happy with the current Taylor sound? I think they want to improve their sound. Moving that sound towards what sound? What is the benchmark of sound they are striving for? The Taylor sound is changing as we write, as it moves towards the tone that Andy Powers is searching for. I'm very excited to see what he comes up with in the near and long term.
$
-
I would choose the 2014 814ce over any other. My second choice would be a 1998. 3rd choice 2010-2013.
-
Bob has said on several occasions that he knows that he makes the best playing necks, most consistent, highest quality fit & finish guitar out there. these are objective, quantifiable results. Tone, on the other hand, is subjective and is different for everyone.
IMO, tone is where Andy Powers is making the biggest impact. It's been great. He's been able to bring more complexity, more depth to the voice of the Taylor guitar while maintaining its signature sparkle. I haven't had a chance to play the new 800's yet, but I've already heard Andy's impact in the guitars that have been coming out over the past couple years. I compare the tone of a guitar from 2002 (814c Coco/Sitka) with one from 2012 (Fall Ltd GC Sapele/Euro) and, other than the obvious differences caused by tonewood variances and body size, and you can easily grasp a significant increase in tonal complexity in the more recent instrument. Another big change is the use of Adirondack Spruce bracing under Sitka tops. It brings Taylor's tone to a whole new dimension.
I'm not saying the older guitars are bad -- I still love them and they're not going anywhere. However, the new designs are definitely more appealing to the discerning ear and will broaden the potential customer base for Taylor. The philosophy of continuous improvement is a good thing - It keeps us coming back for more... ;)
-
So what I am getting here, guitars are like wine. Some need years of ageing to show their best, while others can be drunk right away but will improve some more with age.
Taylor guitars are becoming better and better right out of the box, and will only improve over time. Bob saw to their playability, and Andy is nuancing the tone. Now I understand why players are clamoring for the new 800's.
-
My reason for the 2014 is knowing as it's played it will improve, and I really like the ES2. Something tells me Taylor is going to have record sales this year.
-
...I'm not saying the older guitars are bad -- I still love them and they're not going anywhere. However, the new designs are definitely more appealing to the discerning ear and will broaden the potential customer base for Taylor. The philosophy of continuous improvement is a good thing - It keeps us coming back for more... ;)
And there's the thing I'm talking about: new is not "by definition" better, even if it is by a company we trust, and even if it comes with others who concur. Reason: tone is still in the subjective ear of the beholder.
So folks love what Powers has done, and likewise love that Bob loves it, then they play said new creation and because it is different, it is better.
Now don't get me wrong, if you truly love the difference, that's great. But just because Powers did it, Bob loves it, and others like it do not mean that the said new flavor is "an improvement" in fact.
FWIW: I love my 616 SpringLtd. ...a "powers" design that I enjoy, to be sure as I definitely like what tones it brings to the table. But that challenges nothing. It is different from my other beloved Taylors, not "better." Now is it "better" than some other Taylors that I no longer own? Heck yeah, since I clearly sold Taylor x because I prefer Taylor y. Better. But is it better than other Taylors within the current stable? No. Different voice offering another flavor, yes. But better, no.
I am not detracting in the least what Powers brings as I am equally excited at what will be coming from the the factory. But listing the new features and quoting Powers et al as to the tonal "improvements" simply grates at my sensibilities when referred to as "improvements." Then again, they are their creations so they can say what they want. But I will not :)
I wonder if the tonal schism will be so significant there may one day be pre and post Powers camps. Kind of like pre-CBS for Fender or post-Norlin for Gibson, or more closely pre-war for Martin? Perhaps the tonal differences are too subtle to create such a distinction and I am over-thinking this. Or perhaps the real differences are still around the corner waiting to be developed? All I know is I love what I have, but am still tuned in for next season. :D
Edward
-
It's all about marketing. If a manufacturer didn't come out with something "new" and convince people that the new product is better then the one they currently own, they'd be out of business. No guitar maker wants you to be happy with a guitar you bought from them a few years ago…they want you to buy a NEW, "better" guitar from them. That's their job.
As you noted, our job is to decide whether something new is actually better or just different...
-
It's all about marketing. If a manufacturer didn't come out with something "new" and convince people that the new product is better then the one they currently own, they'd be out of business. No guitar maker wants you to be happy with a guitar you bought from them a few years ago…they want you to buy a NEW, "better" guitar from them. That's their job.
As you noted, our job is to decide whether something new is actually better or just different...
imho, marketing "hype" comes into play if there is hardly anything different between one "version" of a product to another -
the body/bridge/pickguard/headstock shape, standard scale length, nut width & material, bridge pins & woods are carried over,
but every other aspect & process is different, so to dismiss it as "new & improved, with more borax" is being a bit "close-minded"
whether it is "better", different or contrasts & complements one's existing guitars, is up to the person playing -
if a company can't come up with anything "new", they can make an all but blatant "copy" of someone
else's model that is successful or they can try to "go back" to the way things used to be, which means,
to me, they feel their current models are not "as good" as the ones they made back in their "golden era" ::)
-
Have not yet seen or played a new 800 series, but I like the engineering improvements Taylor has made over the years, the fine tolerances, NT neck, finishes etc. I'm not a factory installed electronics guy so if the 2014 were loaded up with the ES, I'd go for the old one. All things being acoustic and equal though, I'd take the 2014. I think engineering is Taylor's shining achievement. The craftsmanship has definitely improved since 94 as well. I owned two Taylors from the mid 90's. The binding and mitering are noticeably better now, and the inside handiwork, although still not Martin perfect, has ticked to the positive. I think they took a giant leap in the late 90's as to build quality. I won't argue tone because that's subjective.
-
...I'm not saying the older guitars are bad -- I still love them and they're not going anywhere. However, the new designs are definitely more appealing to the discerning ear and will broaden the potential customer base for Taylor. The philosophy of continuous improvement is a good thing - It keeps us coming back for more... ;)
And there's the thing I'm talking about: new is not "by definition" better, even if it is by a company we trust, and even if it comes with others who concur. Reason: tone is still in the subjective ear of the beholder.
So folks love what Powers has done, and likewise love that Bob loves it, then they play said new creation and because it is different, it is better.
Now don't get me wrong, if you truly love the difference, that's great. But just because Powers did it, Bob loves it, and others like it do not mean that the said new flavor is "an improvement" in fact.
FWIW: I love my 616 SpringLtd. ...a "powers" design that I enjoy, to be sure as I definitely like what tones it brings to the table. But that challenges nothing. It is different from my other beloved Taylors, not "better." Now is it "better" than some other Taylors that I no longer own? Heck yeah, since I clearly sold Taylor x because I prefer Taylor y. Better. But is it better than other Taylors within the current stable? No. Different voice offering another flavor, yes. But better, no.
I am not detracting in the least what Powers brings as I am equally excited at what will be coming from the the factory. But listing the new features and quoting Powers et al as to the tonal "improvements" simply grates at my sensibilities when referred to as "improvements." Then again, they are their creations so they can say what they want. But I will not :)
I wonder if the tonal schism will be so significant there may one day be pre and post Powers camps. Kind of like pre-CBS for Fender or post-Norlin for Gibson, or more closely pre-war for Martin? Perhaps the tonal differences are too subtle to create such a distinction and I am over-thinking this. Or perhaps the real differences are still around the corner waiting to be developed? All I know is I love what I have, but am still tuned in for next season. :D
Edward
Wise words, Edward! Like your other contributions to this thread (and this forum).
-
I went with the 2014 800 series mainly because of the innovations that I believe will prove to have made this a great guitar. I haven't played one yet, but I'm sure they sound fantastic out of the box. So, if I were shopping for another guitar I would most likely pay a little extra to get the new 800 over a cheaper used 800. The new ones will age and get a more settled in tone just like the others, so what's a couple of years waiting for that.
That said, since I already own a 2012 GS8e I wouldn't trade it in for the new thing. Personally, I'm not sure that the new innovations are going to be that profound that it would be worth a trade in, and I certainly can't afford a new guitar anytime soon. I'm perfectly content, and consider myself very blessed with the one I have.
-
I went with the 2014 800 series mainly because of the innovations that I believe will prove to have made this a great guitar. I haven't played one yet, but I'm sure they sound fantastic out of the box. So, if I were shopping for another guitar I would most likely pay a little extra to get the new 800 over a cheaper used 800. The new ones will age and get a more settled in tone just like the others, so what's a couple of years waiting for that.
That said, since I already own a 2012 GS8e I wouldn't trade it in for the new thing. Personally, I'm not sure that the new innovations are going to be that profound that it would be worth a trade in, and I certainly can't afford a new guitar anytime soon. I'm perfectly content, and consider myself very blessed with the one I have.
it's nice to have a guitar that sounds & feels right, but imho, i would think that a 12 GS8e would fall under "800 series with some age" -
without having played one of the 14 models first-hand, i've haven't either yet, other than descriptions or sound clips there is
no real way to know how a guitar will sound, feel & respond, much less how it will react once it has some time under it's belt
i went to a RoadShow five years ago & there was a BTO BA engelmann/maple with CV bracing & just for grins
i brought along an 03 614 engelmann with pre standard II bracing & after playing both, to my ear, the 09 model
didn't have a discernable difference in tone, at least not enough to make me want to consider acquiring it & a
09 Fall LTD GAceLTD sitka/maple adi CV lacked a bit of maturity & roundness in tone that i felt & still feel the 03 has
that being said, there is no way for me to know how those other 2 guitars sound now & to another player, they may
have been what they were looking for, in terms of tone, playability, responsiveness, feel, aesthetics & appointments
from what i can tell, the 14 814 & 816ce FEs differ from the standard 14 models in that they have an
additional headstock inlay, gold tuners, # of 200 soundhole label, case plaque, booklet, strap & COA -
there hasn't been any significant change in the X18 bracing, from what i've read, but the wood thickness,
finish & the bracing/bridge glues used may have a perceivable difference, but whether or not that will be
more significant than the adi bracing on the 13 818e FE could possibly be determined after playing both
i haven't checked a "vote" because i haven't played a 14 800 series & i have a hunch that there's a good
possibility that i might have checked all 3, but i do know that i'd rather own a guitar that i like the tone &
playability of, whether it's an older 800 series or newer, or perhaps another series or even another brand
ymmv
-
So here's a thought to ponder: In Nov 2007 I went out to buy a new guitar, totally ignorant at that time of the contribution of different tonewoods to tone. I loved the playability of Taylor x14 models, and tried all from 414-814. I already owned a Koa Tacoma. I ultimately went for the playability, tone, and bling of the 614. Thing is, the 614 was a 2005, while all the others were 2007 models. Aside from the "bling", was choosing maple likely because I was accustomed to the tone from my Tacoma and I have a "dark bone tone" , or because the guitar had two extra years of age? I'm actually not sure, especially since my go-to guitars now have rosewood bodies!
-
So here's a thought to ponder: In Nov 2007 I went out to buy a new guitar, totally ignorant at that time of the contribution of different tonewoods to tone....
Here's my take: long ago I "thought" I knew what factors contributed to tone. And being the good lemming, I chased that which the market offered as "better." It took me a while --call it "maturing," jaded cynicism, perhaps even disillusion-- but I eventually grew to learn what tone I wanted; as in "my" tone and not that alluring magic promised by ad copy. Don't get me wrong as I do not deride Taylor in the least for how they market their wares; in the big scheme of things I love what they do and like many here continually anticipate their new goodies. But I accept all "improvements" in the marketplace as "changes." A simple fix in my mind.
So these days I still like "educating" myself on that which constitutes "better," but I purposely instill a measured "ignorance of specs" when it comes time to actually physically demo any gear as such knowledge tends to predispose me, potentially coloring my opinion, and I risk drawing an incorrect tonal conclusion (ahem, to which I have come to regret at a later time, to my chagrin). My version of a true "blind test" is to pretend I know nothing and I just listen. :)
This bears no disparagement to anyone else as I am truly offering my tonal journey over these decades, FW(little)IW. All simply to say perhaps that extra knowledge really may be a dangerous thing; or conversely, measured ignorance makes me a blissful guitar player :D
Edward
-
When I go into a high end guitar shop I consider first shape, size, and luthier. Tonewoods are somewhat secondary, although I seem to have developed a preference for walnut, koa , and rosewood family guitars. Construction and playability are most important for me, although I admit --from all the hype and discussion-- I was really attracted to my GC custom 12 fret bought at a roadshow by the hyped combination of fret#, sinker redwood and rosewood. Luckily for me it plays beautifully.
-
So here's a thought to ponder: In Nov 2007 I went out to buy a new guitar, totally ignorant at that time of the contribution of different tonewoods to tone. I loved the playability of Taylor x14 models, and tried all from 414-814. I already owned a Koa Tacoma. I ultimately went for the playability, tone, and bling of the 614. Thing is, the 614 was a 2005, while all the others were 2007 models. Aside from the "bling", was choosing maple likely because I was accustomed to the tone from my Tacoma and I have a "dark bone tone" , or because the guitar had two extra years of age? I'm actually not sure, especially since my go-to guitars now have rosewood bodies!
the main differences between a 05 & 07 614ce would have been the fingerjoint headstock & 2AA ES on
the 05 rather than the scarfjoint headstock & 9V ES with 2 defeatable body sensors on the 07 -
there may have been a slight change in the wood thicknessing, but i'm not sure if it was utilized
on the CE models in 07, which the acoustic series was introduced, or if it took a year or two longer,
but the bracing pattern has yet to change on the 600s, 500 & 700s, as it's been the standard II
forward shifted pattern that was phased in beginning in 02 & was completed in late 06 on the 300/400s
to me ear, the clean tone, quick decay & "what's put in is what comes out" characteristics
of maple is what got me hooked & the shape, playability, feel & aesthetics of the Taylor X14,
as a being a more modern take on the acoustic guitar, is what reeled me in back in 02 -
i am still a fan of maple, but there have been other wood combinations & body shapes that i paid
little attention to back then & as the years past & the more i played & tried different models,
the more i found that my tonal preferences became more discerning & expanded over a wider range
while doing so & i've been a bit behind the curve when it came to new body shapes at times, as
it took a good 3+ years until i found a X16 that met what my expectations of that model were -
whether it was due to the top on that particular guitar, the CV bracing, the back & sides woods
or a combination of all 3, it was "it" & i thought so much so that when an opportunity presented
itself to where i could acquire another of the same model, which i did, the second guitar, while
identical in specs, was underwhelming when compared to the other which was my "benchmark"
there's a 08 GSeLTD-C adi CV cocobolo that's in the running, with good tone & exceptional overall
value per $, but in terms of sitka/rosewood, what really what gets it for me right now are the old
school square shoulder dreadnought bodies, with non-forward shifted, & in one instance non-scalloped,
bracing, preNT neck, with either nitro, conversion varnish or fullerpast preUV (read "thick") finish -
the 13-earlier CV braced GS8/816ce & adi parabolic braced 818eFE fall a little bit short to my ear &
on paper, a 14 810 with a deep body with HP package could be the bomb-diggity, but it's not an option ... yet ;)
in the meantime, mahogany is where i'm looking & we'll see where that goes
When I go into a high end guitar shop I consider first shape, size, and luthier. Tonewoods are somewhat secondary, although I seem to have developed a preference for walnut, koa , and rosewood family guitars. Construction and playability are most important for me, although I admit --from all the hype and discussion-- I was really attracted to my GC custom 12 fret bought at a roadshow by the hyped combination of fret#, sinker redwood and rosewood. Luckily for me it plays beautifully.
i'm a bit curious about the remarks regarding the GC :-\
if it didn't exceed your expectations, i could understand a possible feeling of "deception" or "hype", but since you
own it, is there more than the playability that drew you to that particular guitar, or it is "just another pretty face" ???
-
When I go into a high end guitar shop I consider first shape, size, and luthier. Tonewoods are somewhat secondary, although I seem to have developed a preference for walnut, koa , and rosewood family guitars. Construction and playability are most important for me, although I admit --from all the hype and discussion-- I was really attracted to my GC custom 12 fret bought at a roadshow by the hyped combination of fret#, sinker redwood and rosewood. Luckily for me it plays beautifully.
i'm a bit curious about the remarks regarding the GC :-\
if it didn't exceed your expectations, i could understand a possible feeling of "deception" or "hype", but since you
own it, is there more than the playability that drew you to that particular guitar, or it is "just another pretty face" ???
[/quote]
I took my wife to a road show. I of course picked up many guitars, but I kept going back to this custom GC. My wife saw some form of rapture on my face and offered to buy it for me as an early (2 1/2 years) 65th birthday present. I had several players play it for me, and it got to the point of not looking a gift horse in the mouth. It was my absolute go-to guitar for more than 2 years until Dec 8, 2013 when I won the Froggy.......... And up to then my only rosewood guitar was a classical (Alhambra). I'd felt a huge hole in my collection not owning a rosewood bodied steel string, plus I'd been intrigued by--and coveted--sinker
A case of function follows form?
-
i would think that a 12 GS8e would fall under "800 series with some age" -[/quote]
What I meant was if I went into a shop to buy a guitar and I had to choose froman older 800 or a new 800 I would spend the extra to get the new 800, for reasons stated. I simply wanted to point out that since I already own an older 800 I wouldn't trade it in for a new 800. It sounds perfectly fine to me and I know that it has been properly taken care of. For me to trade in my older 800 for a 2014 one wouldn't be worth the extra money spent. Perhaps I'm picking an option that wasn't even there.
-
For me to trade in my older 800 for a 2014 one wouldn't be worth the extra money spent.
I'm an owner of an '09 814 and I've played the new one. I think it would be worth the price difference. To me, the new one sounds like a more balanced guitar, combining the best attributes of the Taylors and Collings OMs I've played.
-
I have to say, I admire the folks running Taylor for not resting on their laurels and coasting along with their enormous success. The fact that they've improved guitars we already love is impressive. Can't wait to play some of this new generation.
-
got a chance to play a 810e, 814e, 816e, 816ce & 818e at a RoadShow this evening -
the 816ce was the first one i picked up & the first thing i noticed was the low E :o
deepest, strongest & fullest i've heard on current model sitka/rosewood Taylor -
the rest of the strings were well-balanced & the trebles were shimmery & articulate ... nice :)
the 810e was next & it had that strong low E & great balance too 8)
the 818e, 814e & 816e, unfortunately, were not in the same ball park :-\
i picked up a 718e, figuring it might have something that the 818e didn't -
it sounded "heavier", just a non-descript "heavier" & the 910e i picked up (not a ES2 model) was
just plain heavy, especially compared to the 810e & it sounded dull (my guess is humidity issues)
if the 816ce & 810e were the 2 percenters, then i'd be hard-pressed to order one without being able to play it first, unless
the shop had an approval period & if i were doing an internet deal, i wouldn't risk the shipping charges both ways. a potential
restock fee or merchant credit card fee (which supposedly is not refunded to the merchant if a transaction is reversed ???)
the more recent koa Taylors i've played i would have felt more comfortable with ordering off of a website or over
the phone (to my ear, they've gotten that good & are more consistent) & given the choice, i'd rather try a little
tweaking on a CV braced 800 series than hope that a current 800 will open up & transform in a year's time ... or 5
i don't know if the 816ce would have anything over a well played & maintained 2010 model that was "a good one"
to begin with & to me there isn't enough difference to where the single body sensor ES would be a deal-breaker,
but if there is going to be a deep body 810eLTD with adi AP bracing, that might be something that could pique
my interest otherwise, here's hoping that the 3.5 finish & AP bracing make it to the Custom menu next year ...
-
Sorry, but I've commented many times here and on other forums, that I do not like the current Taylor sound. The sound from the 90's is a much fuller, more pleasing sound.
Just my less than humble opinion.
-
Sorry, but I've commented many times here and on other forums, that I do not like the current Taylor sound. The sound from the 90's is a much fuller, more pleasing sound.
Just my less than humble opinion.
so i take it your vote was either "94" or "one with some age on it" :-\
-
I'm certainly jonesin' to hear one of the new 814's. It could cause me to consider rearranging my arsenal. Visually, I acctually live the look of most of the marbled fretboards that I've seen advertisted but I HAVE seen a few that were NOT so good looking as they were more blonde than black.
-
Sorry, but I've commented many times here and on other forums, that I do not like the current Taylor sound. The sound from the 90's is a much fuller, more pleasing sound.
Just my less than humble opinion.
so i take it your vote was either "94" or "one with some age on it" :-\
My vote was "94“. "One with some age on it" may not go back far enough. Yes, older guitars open up but it's more than just that. The Taylor sound changed about the time they went to the NT neck. Depending on the model, that might be very late 90's to early 2000's.
I realize that may not be a popular opinion on a Taylor forum, but there it is.
You'll see two Taylor's in my signature. Both well before the NT neck design.
-
Sorry, but I've commented many times here and on other forums, that I do not like the current Taylor sound. The sound from the 90's is a much fuller, more pleasing sound.
Just my less than humble opinion.
so i take it your vote was either "94" or "one with some age on it" :-\
My vote was "94“. "One with some age on it" may not go back far enough. Yes, older guitars open up but it's more than just that. The Taylor sound changed about the time they went to the NT neck. Depending on the model, that might be very late 90's to early 2000's.
I realize that may not be a popular opinion on a Taylor forum, but there it is.
You'll see two Taylor's in my signature. Both well before the NT neck design.
Taylor was making guitars 20 years prior to 94, so a 74-93 with "some age on it" would qualify, imho
CNC was introduced at the end of 89 & taking advantage of that led to the introduction of the 400 series in 91 -
the X10 body shape was redesigned in 97, the X12 & X15 in 00, the X12 again in 04 & apparently the X10
was redesigned by larry breedlove in 12, but there didn't seem to be any notation of it until this year's 800 series,
so i'm not sure if the dreadnought shape changed in 12 on all X10 models, or if it starts this year with the 810
UV finish began in 95, then robotic buffers, electrostatic spraying, etc
the NT neck began in 99 & one of the last models to get it were the 315s in 01 -
the X10 went to scalloped bracing in 78, it was revised in 02 (Standard II forward-shifted
with relief rout, on the 500 series/up X15s also, then on the X12 in 04), bracing was revised
again (CV) beginning in the later part of 09 (800s/up) & again on the 800 series this year
the changes in build process for consistency, accuracy, repeatability & serviceability are great, imho
because there are certain things that can be done that would not be able to be accomplished otherwise -
whether or not the end result is an instrument that is more pleasing to the individual depends on, well, the individual
i went to a RoadShow recently & was able to sample the current 800s & compare them between each other &
a couple of similar body shape sitka/rosewood models & what i walked away with is that to my ear based on
5 of the 800s in 3 different body shapes, there were two that i liked, so in my mind they're batting .400, which
on guitars in that $ range is a little tough to swallow, granted others may have prefered the tone of the 3 that
i thought were somewhat less than what i expected, but what really matters is that if 80 out of 100 players like
the previous 800s & changes are made to try to sway the other 20, it's going to be a real challenge to maintain,
or minimize any loss of, the number that thought the series was fine already, while getting a few more of the 20
to vote with their wallets & pocketbooks, with the ultimate goal being that those that already own an 800 serie
will want to add, not necessarily replace unless finances warrant, a current model to their arsenal & those that
felt that the previous 800s were not quite "it" will think about making the investment because they like the changes
i've played countless examples of sitka/rosewood grand auditorium models, pre-standard II, standard II & CV bracing,
pre NT neck, NT neck fingerjoint & scarfjoint headstock & up until now, i've been able to pretty much count on one hand,
the number of models that i tried that had the tone to where i felt i liked it enough to purchase it (a 02 414ce prototype &
a 97 814c), but when i stopped by my FLGS yesterday, there was a new 814ce that had just arrived, so i checked it out -
the fretboard was slightly smoked, the top grain tight, straight & clear, the rosewood pickguard had a finish that resembled
a 100/200 headstock in that it was open-pore to where the grainlines could be seen & felt (it had texture) & the rosewood
on the back & sides was very light in color, with a wide grain pattern, very much like the 714ce that liz used to own here
the tuning was out, especially on the bottom 3 strings, but once that was corrected & exactly one strum later, i thought that
if out-the-box that tone was envisioned for that body shape & woods when they were first offered 20 years ago, that over
the course of making, tweaking, revising & redesigning, that perhaps they are onto something as, to my ear, the tone was
comparable to a 97 814c preNT neck preStandard II/CV bracing model that had well over 10 years of playing on it when i had it
out the mix of models hanging out here (late 70s to 2012), there were significant changes before the NT
neck to bracing, body shapes, woods (fretboard/neck), finishes & i would "challenge" anyone to discern the
tonal variance between two "identical" early & late 99 model guitars where the only difference was the NT neck -
there have been many new models & wood combinations made since the NT neck began & i'd be willing to bet
that there will quite a few more changes made, along with other new variations being introduced within the year
to arbitrarily rule out NT models or pre NT models, or ones made in lemon grove, santee or tecate as being
"deal-breakers" is up to the individual, not that there is nothing "wrong" with that, as it makes those models
available to rest of us that would rather give them a shot & see how they complement/contrast with the rest -
playing the guitar first, if possible, is always the best option & failing that, an approval period with no restocking fee
ymmv