Are Taylors the Equal of Luthier-Made Instruments?

[wooglins]

They put a soundboard on the floor and see if it can withstand the rigors of tap shoes.

A bridge grows in Brooklyn...........

there are some builders that believe that's about the value of tap tuning
http://www.cumpiano.com/Home/Newsletters/Issues/twentythree.htm#So what's the

i can't say that i quite understand tapping the top/bridge before the guitar is about to the strung,
other than to verify that there are no vibrations from something loose, etc, unless one was going to
attempt to reshape one or more of the braces after the soundbox was completed (doubtful) -
Taylor has built so many guitars that "they know what works" & it was more than trial & error, as a
2 piece top can be glued 3 ways & orientated 4 ways, i think that the tops are thicknessed, glued,
flexed & if a couple more thousandths need to be taken off, then they are, as there may not be time
to do much more than that & top braces are pre-CNC cut, glued & basically cleaned up, as i don't think
that the braced tops are tuned any further, as that would require the use of a piece of equipment
that could measure & visually represent the nodal points & responses of the top, not unlike what
was used in the development of the ES systems, but this likely could  have been done on R Taylors

i do notice that the OP doesn't seem to be responding & i'm not here to "argue" about +'s or -'s, pros & cons -
i say, just get out there, play a bunch & buy what you love in whatever fashion makes one most comfortable,
no matter who makes it, how it's made, what it's made out of or where it's made, local mom & pop, big box or luthier ...

it'a all good

So does Taylor deliberately choose top sitka sets with certain traits for its production models so the process of thicknessing, for ex, can be extremely predictable?  And for less-used topwoods like sinker, are they likely to spend more time thicknessing than when sitka is used?

Some luthiers prefer to join the back of the guitar to the sides last, after the top has already been joined.  While this provides more of the challenge to present a flawlessly clean assembly as seen through the sound hole (ie residual glue), those luthiers that choose this method feel they can fine tune the voicing of the instrument to a higher degree.  Does a process such as this unbalance the equation slightly in favor of Luthier-made instrumentsZ?

Taylor averages acoustic qualities of most of their top woods such as Sitka.  In other words they know how the majority of their wood will voice when planed at a specific thickness with specifically cut braces.  For some of their BTO woods they will plane the wood to the proper thickness based on its properties but this is obviously not possible on an individual basis for their Sitka guitars, there are to many tops.

[MexicoMike]

There is no doubt in my mind that a luthier-built guitar CAN be better than a production guitar.  IOW, If it was possible (which it is not) to provide identical pieces of wood to Taylor and Borgeois (for example), IMO the Bourgeois COULD be superior tone-wise because of the individual "tuning" that is involved.  OF course, that all ASSUMES you prefer THAT sound.  You might prefer the sound of the "average" Taylor over a Bourgeois anyway…

Frankly, I'd LIKE to have a boutique guitar just because they are not as thick as flies on honey in the real world of gigging. But the price makes it a difficult decision if the ONLY reason to buy it is to have something "different."

[michaelw]

There is no doubt in my mind that a luthier-built guitar CAN be better than a production guitar.  IOW, If it was possible (which it is not) to provide identical pieces of wood to Taylor and Borgeois (for example), IMO the Bourgeois COULD be superior tone-wise because of the individual "tuning" that is involved.  OF course, that all ASSUMES you prefer THAT sound.  You might prefer the sound of the "average" Taylor over a Bourgeois anyway…

Frankly, I'd LIKE to have a boutique guitar just because they are not as thick as flies on honey in the real world of gigging. But the price makes it a difficult decision if the ONLY reason to buy it is to have something "different."

i'll put my $ on a collaboration that's collectively built over 1,000,000 guitars, has the resources of a
boutique luthier that not only understands a wide array of instruments, but is also a pro level player -
http://www.andypowersinstruments.com/

from the background & volume, pantheon sounds about like R Taylor was
http://www.pantheonguitars.com/aboutpantheon.htm

to me, tradition has to sound "better" to my ear & having played/heard some of these "holy grail" guitars & woods ... meh

ymmv

[MexicoMike]

Guitars are not cars so I cannot agree with your mass-production viewpoint.  A master luthier making one guitar at a time can make each guitar sound its best.  Taylor's master luthier does not make Taylor's guitars, he designs them.  The assembly "line" makes them.  Nobody adjusts individual bracing to the top for specific sound; nobody individually taps the guitar tops for tone prior to bracing and discards tops that don't "sound right." 

As far as not being impressed with boutique guitars. it seems logical that if you prefer the Taylor sound, it is unlikely you would care for any of the boutique guitars since most of them seem to be (and claim to be) essentially pre-war Martin clones and try to pretty much capture that sound.  So sure, if you are pro-Taylor sound, you are going to be pretty much automatically anti-Martin/boutique guitar sound.

Again, I am NOT saying that anyone should PREFER a boutique guitar sound; if you like the sound of a 114 over a Huss and Dalton TDM, that's YOUR preference and I would never criticize it.  It would be like me criticizing your choice of car color…if you like it, then you like it!

[Jersey tuning]

The combination of power and delicate expressiveness that my 00-sized Froggy Bottom possesses required the personal attention of the 4 craftsmen who worked on my guitar.  I would love to play it side by side with a 1934 Martin 00-42, which it somewhat resembles and is constructed from the same woods as.

[michaelw]

Guitars are not cars so I cannot agree with your mass-production viewpoint.

this has nothing to do purely with the sheer number of guitars, but what has been tried, learned, developed, redesigned, modified & so on -
even cars go through updates, not always recalls, sometimes TSBs, & as needed they are phased into production, not complete
redesigns & sometimes the differences aren't as readily apparent, such as 96 - early 97 mustang 3.8 V6 vs. later 97 thru 98

... if a large scale builder takes the initiative, they can take the "stellar" 2 out of a run of 100 of the same model,
determine what makes them stand out above the rest, phase those changes into production, so that the "2 %ers" are the
norm & repeat the process, whereas a single builder does not have that luxury, even over the course of many decades -
a true one-man operation is a rare thing, from raw wood set to finished instrument & seeing that some finishes can take
several weeks to cure enough to be shipped out, variances in neck angles & carves, unless a CNC machine is utilized, &
a guitar built in such a manner is just that, a "one-off", which may be a good thing, but then again it may not if it is a "dud" ...

ymmv

A master luthier making one guitar at a time can make each guitar sound its best.

dana bourgeois & pantheon does not fall under this category & neither does huss & dalton -
"best" to whom
"best" to the one building the guitar or "best" the one that is buying the guitar & will be playing it

Taylor's master luthier does not make Taylor's guitars, he designs them.

you mean with a CAD/CAM machine, not with a chisel, planer, rasp & files
the ukes & X18 were Andy's designs that was refined as needed to be able to produced
in a factory setting, as is the changed to the 800 series bracing & build process -
prototypes were built, voiced, finished & the final results are what was desired

The assembly "line" makes them.

the assembly line does not make the guitars without skilled, qualified craftspersons -
it is not the guitar machine 5000, where raw wood is put in one end & a finished guitar pops out the other

Nobody adjusts individual bracing to the top for specific sound; nobody individually taps the guitar tops for tone prior to bracing and discards tops that don't "sound right."

there are other companies where this happens as well & who's to say what sounds "right" to whom
i can see many more areas where inconsistencies can happen if one person is doing everything

As far as not being impressed with boutique guitars. it seems logical that if you prefer the Taylor sound, it is unlikely you would care for any of the boutique guitars since most of them seem to be (and claim to be) essentially pre-war Martin clones and try to pretty much capture that sound.

i've heard & played some of these models, some so-called "clones", which i would consider an "authentic series"
to fall into that category or at least a "reissue", as well as the "real-deal" & compared them with other guitars -
what i've heard, these hasn't been anything that would be in the 2X PS range that has caught my interest ... yet

So sure, if you are pro-Taylor sound, you are going to be pretty much automatically anti-Martin/boutique guitar sound.

i've played & owned many other brands of guitars, including martins & i have the ones that are "it" in
terms of tone, to me, so i'm not anti-anything, other than having a preconceived notion of what is "better" &
believe it or not, Taylor's tone covers a much wider palette than guitars made in the past 10 years

Again, I am NOT saying that anyone should PREFER a boutique guitar sound;

but you are saying that the master luthier boutique guitar is "better" just because "it is"

if you like the sound of a 114 over a Huss and Dalton TDM, that's YOUR preference and I would never criticize it.

guess we'll find out before too much longer -
what you are "criticizing" is the "blind fact" that luthier guitars are automatically "better" &
for you they may be, but the reasons you give to support that are very thin ones, imho

Frankly, I'd LIKE to have a boutique guitar just because they are not as thick as flies on honey in the real world of gigging

i'm not in it for the "exclusivity", not that there anything wrong with that, but the simple fact there may be only a several dozen, or
perhaps a few hundred, guitars made in a year by some of the independent/smaller builders holds no automatic "mystic aura" for me -
if the way it used to be done is still the "best" way, i'm still looking for the guitar that proves it tonally, not by how few people built it 

[MexicoMike]

If you take my comments as insulting to Taylor, which you seem to, you are missing my point.  I think they make great guitars.  There is, however, a limit to what a factory can do as far as individual adjustment.

Here's an example from another field that may help explain my view.

For many years I professionally built competition and high performance engines, primarily US v8s.  One popular engine, advertised by the factory at 425 HP ranged from as low as 430 HP to 510 HP when re received them new and tested them on the dyno.  This is the "tolerance" of mass production - all engines were OK but some were clearly better.  However…blueprinting those engines (no "high performance" parts, just ensuring all tolerances/specs were at optimum) resulted in engines with a range of from 540 to 555 HP.  This takes a LOT of individual labor. 

IMO, that is the difference between a mass produced instrument and a Botique instrument.   A good mass produced instrument is very good but the ones that are individually checked/adjusted/reasembled by "master" mechanics, CAN be better.  Sure, depending on the skill/interest/dedication of the mechanic who did the blueprinting, it could be worse than a factory engine.  But the factory engine assembly line can only take the parts supplied and assemble them, just as a guitar factory does.  Some of those assembled parts will match, or be very close to the design specs; some will be less so.  In the case of a guitar, one could argue that the only guitar that can "meet" the design spec sound-wise is the one that the Luthier made him/herself because the wood is different for every single instrument.  Therefore, without "blueprinting" there is no way to ENSURE optimum sound is obtained from each guitar.  Factory guitars cannot be "blueprinted," there is just no way to do that.  HOWEVER, because of Taylor's quality control, machinery, etc, they are consistently excellent, but some are more or less "excellent" than others, as any of us who have compared identical models can attest.

"dana bourgeois & pantheon does not fall under this category & neither does huss & dalton -

Your statement about Dana Bourgeois is a disappointing attack on a luthier who has considerable experience and who has authored papers that are considered industry standards on voicing and other aspects of guitar making. Bad-mouthing someone from another company who makes instruments that consistently win praise throughout the industry is a bit mean-spirited.

""best" to whom
"best" to the one building the guitar or "best" the one that is buying the guitar & will be playing it """

I don't think anyone has ever disagreed with that and it applies to Taylor as well as to any other guitar maker; if you don't like the sound, you don't like the sound, regardless who makes the guitar.  Andy's "vision" of what a guitar should sound like is no more or less valid than anybody else's vision.  If you like HIS sound, great…that's really all there is to it.  But I don't thing putting down other well-known and respected luthiers is necessary or useful. 

[Jersey tuning]

It's difficult to put a price on pride of ownership. There are a handful of small production luthiers whose instruments I would gladly pay 2x Taylor presentation prices. Frankly I would never buy a Taylor presentation guitar--not because they're lacking as instruments, but because at that price point I want a guitar made by an Olson or Ryan or other small shop. Pride of ownership.  My 614 and BTO GC are remarkable instruments, extraordinary values which to my mind blow away the competition in the realm of production guitars. I'm proud to own them.  But I've seen 12K Taylors at roadshows--at that price I want to speak to the luthier, discuss my needs and desires, and be involved in the process.

Just my needs for total satisfaction.  Pride of ownership

[Strumming Fool]

That's a great point. I think that pride of ownership will be very dependent on each person's preferences. For me, I have had guitars built for me by smaller shops in the past. They were great guitars, but they ultimately didn't fit my personality/player's needs. I consider myself fortunate that I've found an instrument for all seasons in the Taylor GA. I have since played some wonderful guitars made by smaller shops and individual luthiers. While I can appreciate the luthier's craft, these guitars, while fun to flirt with, did not represent instruments for life (at least for me).

That's what makes it so difficult to place a value or to determine which is "better". It's really a very personal choice. While I've been told many times that I'm a very talented guitarist, I'm no virtuoso. There are way too many folks out there who can play circles around me. As a singer/songwiter, I've found my soulmate in the Taylor GA. It's probably like wine. You can keep buying more and more expensive bottles, but you'll probably get to a point where you can't appreciate the difference between the one you're tasting and the less expensive one you previously enjoyed. It's at that point where you conclude that you've gotten the best taste experience for your dollar.

[jrporter]

In my mind, this is one of those questions which can only be answered, "It depends." Just as there is a wide variety of luthier made instruments, there are a wide variety of factory made Taylors. Even with a partial qualification that names a few luthier brands, it's remains too broad a question. I had the opportunity to play a couple of Hendersons side-by-side. Wayne's beat-up thirty year old dread was sublime, but the 0-body that he (or maybe his daughter) made for a customer did nothing for me. I'm not really sure that this question can be answered without comparing one specific Taylor to one specific model from the luthier in question. It's really a moot point for me because I've identified the price range that is reasonable for me, the tone and playability I prefer, and I've found that in my Taylor Grand Auditorium guitars...

[Jersey tuning]

That's what makes it so difficult to place a value or to determine which is "better". It's really a very personal choice. While I've been told many times that I'm a very talented guitarist, I'm no virtuoso. There are way too many folks out there who can play circles around me. As a singer/songwiter, I've found my soulmate in the Taylor GA. It's probably like wine. You can keep buying more and more expensive bottles, but you'll probably get to a point where you can't appreciate the difference between the one you're tasting and the less expensive one you previously enjoyed. It's at that point where you conclude that you've gotten the best taste experience for your dollar.

The analogy to wine is apt.  I've been in a wine tasting group for almost 30 years.  At our last tasting (pinot noirs from Oregon) we all tasted one wine that was clearly better than the rest.  But we all agreed it was priced 40% over its perceived value, and none of the 18 or so people there said they would buy this wine.  It was made by a boutique winery with small production that was forced to price its offering high to offset its production costs.  One can go back and substitute "guitar show" for "wine tasting", "guitar" for "wine" and "luthier" for "winery", n'est pas?

There are wines around the world that are priced stratospherically.  THere is certainly a great pleasure in opening such a famous label with friends, but often the mystique turns into a mystery--what's the big deal about this wine??  I confine most of my purchases therefore to wines I have actually tasted at our wine tasting group,

Same deal with guitars.  I have difficulty conceptualizing the purchase of a high end guitar sight unseen.  A guitar may have great pedigree, fabulous construction and AAAAA esthetics and woods, but in my hands or your hands just doesn't sing.

 Like you, I'm a decent guitarist, average for a long time player by some standards but not great and no virtuoso. If I actually wrote songs I would be considered a singer-songwriter;  instead I'm a singer/player.  The "right" guitar for me allows me to take my foot off the accelerator and play more lyrically and expressively, which is more my wheelhouse style than overdriving my guitar.  Fortunately, my Froggy Bottom fits the bill ............

[MexicoMike]

As far as wine, I have always said, "Trust no wine that doesn't have a top you can screw back on the bottle!"  Clearly, I am not a wine connoisseur though I can certainly put it away as well as the next guy

Froggy Bottom is another brand I find interesting.  As I have said earlier, when I'm back in the US for a couple of months (late APR/MAY/JUN) I hope to try out some of the boutique guitars.  There's a shop in Austin that I will visit as well as a nice store near Baltimore, where I purchased my Taylor GS5-12, that has some of those instruments.  I have a good friend who plays jazz/blues guitar almost nightly and though he is not an acoustic player primarily, he was highly impressed with some Hendersons he played.

I don 't know if others agree, but I find it very helpful/interesting to discuss other instruments.  I LIKE my Taylors but it seems silly to act as if they are the only decent guitars around…

[Jersey tuning]

I don 't know if others agree, but I find it very helpful/interesting to discuss other instruments.  I LIKE my Taylors but it seems silly to act as if they are the only decent guitars around…

Amen

[mgap]

As far as wine, I have always said, "Trust no wine that doesn't have a top you can screw back on the bottle!"  Clearly, I am not a wine connoisseur though I can certainly put it away as well as the next guy

So you would not be caught with a box in the refrigerator?  Are you not being a little bit snobbish?

[michaelw]

If you take my comments as insulting to Taylor, which you seem to, you are missing my point.  I think they make great guitars.  There is, however, a limit to what a factory can do as far as individual adjustment.

i don't take your comments as being insulting to Taylor, i just don't agree that an independent/small luthier
guitar is necessarily a "better" instrument just because  the guitar is not made by a large scale builder

Here's an example from another field that may help explain my view.

For many years I professionally built competition and high performance engines, primarily US v8s.  One popular engine, advertised by the factory at 425 HP ranged from as low as 430 HP to 510 HP when re received them new and tested them on the dyno.  This is the "tolerance" of mass production - all engines were OK but some were clearly better.  However…blueprinting those engines (no "high performance" parts, just ensuring all tolerances/specs were at optimum) resulted in engines with a range of from 540 to 555 HP.  This takes a LOT of individual labor.

engines were built to much looser tolerances then & a number of things have changed, some due to
government requirements, others from advancement in technology & some just from "cost-cutting" -
hyperuetectic pistons & low tension rings allow tighter tolerances, more efficiency, lower emissions which
allows for increased performance, up to a point, until an extreme amount of additional power is added

this is exactly my point of how mass production can have certain advantages -
the standout "2 %ers" can be taken to find out if there are any repeatable aspects that can be phased into production
to make the others perform closer to that level, but some of them may be "just the way they are" & are factory "freaks"

the repeatable precision in which a factory setting can have control over is to within .0005", which
allows for consistency & granted there will be some variance when working with natural materials, but
this simply is not possible in a small shop that does not utilize CNC in some way, shape or form

IMO, that is the difference between a mass produced instrument and a Botique instrument.   A good mass produced instrument is very good but the ones that are individually checked/adjusted/reasembled by "master" mechanics, CAN be better.  Sure, depending on the skill/interest/dedication of the mechanic who did the blueprinting, it could be worse than a factory engine.  But the factory engine assembly line can only take the parts supplied and assemble them, just as a guitar factory does.  Some of those assembled parts will match, or be very close to the design specs; some will be less so.

there is a point of diminishing returns, where many, many man hours can be spent in search of a .5% increase in power -
balancing & blueprinting is not feasible or realistic, in a production environment, nor it is cost effective

In the case of a guitar, one could argue that the only guitar that can "meet" the design spec sound-wise is the one that the Luthier made him/herself because the wood is different for every single instrument.  Therefore, without "blueprinting" there is no way to ENSURE optimum sound is obtained from each guitar.  Factory guitars cannot be "blueprinted," there is just no way to do that.  HOWEVER, because of Taylor's quality control, machinery, etc, they are consistently excellent, but some are more or less "excellent" than others, as any of us who have compared identical models can attest.

"dana bourgeois & pantheon does not fall under this category & neither does huss & dalton -

Your statement about Dana Bourgeois is a disappointing attack on a luthier who has considerable experience and who has authored papers that are considered industry standards on voicing and other aspects of guitar making. Bad-mouthing someone from another company who makes instruments that consistently win praise throughout the industry is a bit mean-spirited.

i'm not attacking anyone -
from the criteria you posted, one guitar being worked on at a time, is a category that neither of the names you've dropped falls into
i'm not in any way bad mouthing what these companies have done, i'm just saying that your perspective is inaccurate
""best" to whom
"best" to the one building the guitar or "best" the one that is buying the guitar & will be playing it """

I don't think anyone has ever disagreed with that and it applies to Taylor as well as to any other guitar maker; if you don't like the sound, you don't like the sound, regardless who makes the guitar.
Andy's "vision" of what a guitar should sound like is no more or less valid than anybody else's vision.

this is true, but you have dismissed it simply because he is now involved with a large scale company

If you like HIS sound, great…that's really all there is to it.  But I don't thing putting down other well-known and respected luthiers is necessary or useful.

i'm not putting down any other luthiers, i'm simply disagreeing with your opinion
of how you feel the process that other guitars are being built, which is inaccurate

i am not a brand loyal Taylor "fan-boi" -
i'm simply looking for what i feel is the best tool for the job

diff'rnt strokes for diff'rnt folks