Unofficial Taylor Guitar Forum - UTGF
Taylor Acoustic & Electric Guitars => Taylor Acoustic & Electric Guitars => Topic started by: Gary-N-LA on February 25, 2014, 01:56:52 AM
-
At the risk of being bar-be-cued on this Taylor blog, do you folks think Taylors are the equal of luthier made instruments like Lowden, Santa Cruz, Goodall and Olson? How can a factory-made instrument hope to compete with one made by one man on a bench?
I say this as a Taylor owner and as someone who is very likely going to buy another Taylor tomorrow afternoon - a BTO cuz I've friggin' fallen in love with it!!
-
I think Taylor's best instruments, including BTO's, are the equal of those from the smaller factory guitar makers like Santa Cruz, Collings, Bourgeois, Huss and Dalton, etc. I wouldn't lump Olson or even Lowden in with the others, however, as now we're in a different arena, smaller operations producing anywhere from a dozen to a hundred instruments a year. Those smaller luthiers are usully constructing instruments on commission, with traits specific to the player. While Taylor construction and playability is the equal of anyone, the playing experience is a bit more generic when compared with Olson or, say, Froggy Bottom, which produces around 100 instruments a year.
Go into any shop with a large inventory of Taylors, or go to a roadshow. You can pick up any Taylor and strum a bit, fingerpick a bit, and they all sound great. Of course you can drive a DN, GO or GS harder than a GC or GA, and there are many different tonal flavors from the myriad wood combinations.
Now go into a shop like Maple Leaf Music in Vt. which carries Collings, Froggy Bottoms and other higher end instruments. Time I was there, they had 8 different Froggies. Each different model had to he played differently to bring out the best of the instrument. And that best was really special.
The expression "Swiss army knife" that Taylor applies to its GA model really applies across the board. I even found at the Woodstock Luthier Showcase that some single luthiers were showing beautiful but rather generic-playing instruments. Are they any "better" than Taylors? I don't know.
-
Depends on what "equal" means…
Soundwise? Well, that's totally subjective. Since Taylor has a "sound," just as Martin does, it will depend on which sound you like which also varies with what you are doing with the instrument. I haven't heard enough boutique guitars to make any sort of real conclusion but GENERALLY, it seems to me that the best known boutique guitar makers emulate pre-war Martins (many of them state exactly that) so they sound more Martin-like than Taylor-like. So if you prefer the Taylor sound, a Taylor is "better." If you prefer the Martin sound, one of the boutiques or an "authentic" series Martin is "better."
Construction -wise? IMO yes, they are as good. Of course there are differences in the construction - is one way "better" than another? Depends on who you ask. The Taylor neck design is really neat for when a reset is eventually necessary. I'd call that aspect "better" though some makes - like Martin - would claim it's not as good sound-wise as a glued neck.
IMO, a high-series number Taylor is as good a guitar as anybody else's "good" guitar; whether you prefer its sound to a boutique brand (or any other brand) is a totally different issue. You'd have to play them both and make a decision.
-
Depends on what "equal" means…
Soundwise? Well, that's totally subjective. Since Taylor has a "sound," just as Martin does, it will depend on which sound you like which also varies with what you are doing with the instrument. I haven't heard enough boutique guitars to make any sort of real conclusion but GENERALLY, it seems to me that the best known boutique guitar makers emulate pre-war Martins (many of them state exactly that) so they sound more Martin-like than Taylor-like. So if you prefer the Taylor sound, a Taylor is "better." If you prefer the Martin sound, one of the boutiques or an "authentic" series Martin is "better."
Construction -wise? IMO yes, they are as good. Of course there are differences in the construction - is one way "better" than another? Depends on who you ask. The Taylor neck design is really neat for when a reset is eventually necessary. I'd call that aspect "better" though some makes - like Martin - would claim it's not as good sound-wise as a glued neck.
IMO, a high-series number Taylor is as good a guitar as anybody else's "good" guitar; whether you prefer its sound to a boutique brand (or any other brand) is a totally different issue. You'd have to play them both and make a decision.
I think this is an excellent observation.
-
I make an annual pilgrimage to a guitar shop on Staten Island, Mandolin Brothers. They have hundreds of guitars on display, and allow the player complete access to their instruments. One room contains only D'Angelicos, golden era Martins and single luthier instruments. Another contains boutique-ier operations like H&D, Collings, Lowden, Bourgeois, and Santa Cruz. My BTO Taylor would fit in well in this room; in fact favorable comparison with a Madi-Adi OM sized Bourgeois I really liked at Mandolin moved me to buy my BTO Taylor at a roadshow.
-
How can a factory-made instrument hope to compete with one made by one man on a bench?
They're different animals that carry equal value depending on what you're looking to get out of a guitar . There are several brands that I truly admire, like Santa Cruz and Bourgeois, but I enjoy the consistency of my playing experience, regardless of which of the Taylor GAs below I pick up to play. Mind you, they all have different personalities, but there is a comfort in knowing that none of these guitars will get in the way of my art. The build quality is excellent, and the playability is hard to beat. I love the Taylor tone, whether it's from the 90s or current. I look forward to Andy Powers further narrowing the gap between luthier-shop guitars and Taylor's "mass-produced" guitars, especially after test-driving a new 814 recently (take the name off the headstock, and that guitar may as well have been a one-off luthier's creation).
-
How can a factory-made instrument hope to compete with one made by one man on a bench?
They're different animals that carry equal value depending on what you're looking to get out of a guitar . There are several brands that I truly admire, like Santa Cruz and Bourgeois, but I enjoy the consistency of my playing experience, regardless of which of the Taylor GAs below I pick up to play. Mind you, they all have different personalities, but there is a comfort in knowing that none of these guitars will get in the way of my art. The build quality is excellent, and the playability is hard to beat. I love the Taylor tone, whether it's from the 90s or current. I look forward to Andy Powers further narrowing the gap between luthier-shop guitars and Taylor's "mass-produced" guitars, especially after test-driving a new 814 recently (take the name off the headstock, and that guitar may as well have been a one-off luthier's creation).
I've played a few Huss & Daltons and Rockbridge guitars, but none made me want to ditch mine and sign on the dotted line. My 524 First Edition, in particular, is pretty hard to beat, in my estimation, regardless of how it was put together. Those with greater ears, playing skills and attention to detail might disagree...
-
... How can a factory-made instrument hope to compete with one made by one man on a bench? ...
in terms of consistency & repeatability, there is no contest, imho
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"
personally, i think you need to try out more makes & models of guitars
ymmv
-
... How can a factory-made instrument hope to compete with one made by one man on a bench? ...
in terms of consistency & repeatability, there is no contest, imho
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,
ymmv
.
A great, great point, and the reason Taylor is so consistent.
However, not all wood sets are created equal. Is Taylor set up to vary the thickness and bracing of tops based on the grain or other factors, and do they "tap test" their tops? I'd be even more impressed if this were the case.
-
... However, not all wood sets are created equal. Is Taylor set up to vary the thickness and bracing of tops based on the grain or other factors, and do they "tap test" their tops? I'd be even more impressed if this were the case.
tap test every single top on every single guitar ???
no, but neither does any of other large scale builders
if the independent luthier that one commissions a guitar from is not on the exact same book & page, in terms
of the tonal characteristics desired, then the end result could be a very disappointing, & costly, one, imho :-\
-
When I went for our Taylor factory tour I remember our tour guide doing the tap test, and then said they do tap testing. At the end of production I saw a Taylor team member taping a finished (before it was strung)guitar, it looked like it might be a BTO.
-
Do what? ???
-
Do what? ???
They put a soundboard on the floor and see if it can withstand the rigors of tap shoes.
A bridge grows in Brooklyn...........
Michael, please help..........
-
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 (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 :)
-
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 (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?
-
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 (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.
-
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."
-
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/ (http://www.andypowersinstruments.com/)
from the background & volume, pantheon sounds about like R Taylor was
http://www.pantheonguitars.com/aboutpantheon.htm (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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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 :P
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
-
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 ............
-
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… ;)
-
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
-
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? :o
-
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
-
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? :o
sort of like a Dean guitar
-
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?
Many fine wines now come with screw caps, BTW. I do draw the line at boxed wine. Oh, what the heck, lets have some boxed wine Sant'gria
-
Too many generalities! but I side with Michael. Frankly I don't share all this concern about how many were built or by whom or even all that much about appearance. Neither does Willy, apparently. Buy a guitar with your eyes closed. Use your ears. Will it do what you want musically? BTW the purpose of my 414 is to accompany my voice singing ballads to my wife in the living room. It works perfect for that according to her. It was affordable (not like so many boutique guitars). I don't think I even looked at the Ovangkol back until I got it home (it's very nice if you care about that stuff). If I play for friends I don't point out the appearance of the wood. I want them to focus on my music. Nice thread though thanks.
-
For some of us, an awesome playing guitar is all we need. Others not only play, but collect as well. Amongst the collectors, some seek a personal "holy grail" guitar that transcends playability, tone attributes and esthetics and becomes something more than the sum of the parts. So "equal" or "better" is entirely subjective.
-
Great thread. For my playing ability, a stock, off the shelf Taylor is about all I need. Now, what I want is a different story. I'm in contact with a luthier and am in the planning stages of building my dream GS-mini size guitar.
14 fret
24 inch scale
1 3/4 nut width
Cut away
Flamey koa back and sides
Koa or spruce top. can't decide yet
Going to be very plane jane, but awsome wood.
-
Great thread. For my playing ability, a stock, off the shelf Taylor is about all I need. Now, what I want is a different story. I'm in contact with a luthier and am in the planning stages of building my dream GS-mini size guitar.
14 fret
24 inch scale
1 3/4 nut width
Cut away
Flamey koa back and sides
Koa or spruce top. can't decide yet
Going to be very plane jane, but awsome wood.
What do you plan on as far as bracing goes? Slot head or paddle head?
-
"Great thread. For my playing ability, a stock, off the shelf Taylor is about all I need."
For my ability a stock, off the shelf Yamaha FG700 is fine! But that's a different issue… :)
$
-
From the R. Taylor website:
There’s no question that fervent attention to detail yields a superior guitar. One strum is all it takes to reveal it. Even one look promises that you’re in for something good. Welcome to R. Taylor Guitars.
Housed on the campus of Taylor Guitars, five craftsmen work to build a handful of guitars each week. Each luthier has a minimum of ten years experience at Taylor, and each possesses the skill and the will to bring a guitar to life in a special way that cannot normally be done. Starting with the finest woods available in the world, we thoughtfully lay out the parts, weigh and measure, and design a plan, drawing upon our depths of experience. What top geometry or bracing alteration will work on this striped ebony back and sides? How do we work with cocobolo to fashion a fingerstyle instrument for one customer and a strummer for another? This is what we do with each of the three hundred or so guitars we will make in a year. The extra attention to detail means a lot more labor hours spent on each guitar. But we believe it’s worth it. We’re confident you will, too.
- Bob Taylor
I think it's apples and oranges to try and compare Taylors to boutique small-shop/luthier instruments. Tone is subjective, as are personal tastes in appointments and aesthetics. That being said, when you look at what Bob was trying to do with R. Taylor and what he has said in the past about Collings, it would seem that even he would agree that a smaller team of skilled craftsmen might produce better results. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. Are the results going to directly correlate to price paid or time spent on a waiting list? I don't think so. But I do think there's a difference, even if it's negligible for some.
I'm fortunate enough to own both a Taylor and a luthier-built instrument. My Taylor is a humble early 210. It punches far above its weight and price point -- to the point where I've only played only one other Taylor I'd rather own. It has a rich, balanced tone and is incredibly versatile. I also own a Fairbanks F-35 -- an homage to the late '30s Gibson J-35. As expected, it sounds completely different. It's dry and dark and woody and has that beautiful Gibson-esque thumping bass. It's also incredibly versatile.
They're both great guitars and I love them for different reasons. But I admit I have really fallen in love with the featherweight hide-glue construction and beautiful hand-applied sunburst of the Fairbanks. I think either of those aspects of my guitar would be tough to achieve en masse from a larger builder. I might be wrong. But at the very least, there's something very cool about a hand-made guitar. It's very much in line with the whole "maker movement" that has become so popular in recent years as a response to the the tech industry (and, ironically, often by people from tech).
That's not to say that I don't love what Taylor is doing and their methodology. I think it's awesome. I love what the company does and what they stand for. And I'm sure I'll end up with another of their guitars before it's all said and done. I also think that bringing on a "boutique luthier" of their own is going to make Taylor that much better going forward.
Fact of the matter is -- apart from it being apples and oranges -- that there's never been a better time to be a guitar player. There are so many choices and the quality of guitars coming from big brands, luthiers' workshops, and everywhere inbetween is simply remarkable.
-
As the guy who started this thread (now 537 views later), let me say that I agree with ataylor's perspective. Well reasoned and well put. Nothing can replace a hand made instrument.