6 replies to this topic

[ZooBooBooZoo]

Hi All,

 

I recently played on a Taylor 214 and a Guild AD5.

Both in the same price range and both have laminated rosewood( back & sides) and sitka spruce(top), the neck is mahogany on the Guild and sapele on the Taylor which should be similar-sounding.

 

Overall the taylor was very light and comfortable but it had a much brighter sound and the overall sound of chords(especially strummed chords) was not too "together" and was a lil' "all over the place".

 

The Guild on the other hand had a warm, fat, rich sound with a very lucid and clear sound of the strummed chords with every note/string having a distinct "place of it's own" in the mix of notes/strings(which is the opposite of "all over the place" in my lexicon ).

 

These two guitars seems pretty close on paper, so I wonder what makes them sound so different?

 

Link to Guild Specs: http://www.guildguit...impleContained4

Link To Taylor Specs: http://www.taylorgui...rs/acoustic/214

 

I also tried a few other models by Guild and Taylor and it most cases that bright&scattered vs. warm&stable distinctions seemed to stick.

 

I know that there aren't two guitars who are a like and obviously the fact that three of the main wood parts are the same kind doesn't mean it's exactly the same kind or the same woods, and obviously these are two different manufactures, but still I would like to know what your opinion is on what are the causes for the differences.

 

Thanks in advance for the info, ZBBZ.

 

P.S. - I hope my words choices was reasonable, as we all know sound is hard to describe verbally and the of course some of these attributes are related to personal taste.

Edited by ZooBooBooZoo, 05 September 2013 - 12:17 AM.

[ZooBooBooZoo]

I've used them in the same store, on the same chair etc.

 

I considered strings, which are obviously very important, but unfortunately didn't had the option to put the same strings on both.

 

If I remeber correctly, the 210(which is dreadnought) had a similiar bright sound, But I'll have to recheck that.

 

 Couldn't find what kind of wood is the taylor bracing made of just the "x shaped scallopped" description of it's structure.

 

The guild sounded much more like my beloved Martin DC-1CE, and I wonder what makes the Martin and the Guild similar and the Taylor different in sound.

 

Links

Link to Guild Specs: http://www.guildguit...impleContained4

Link To Taylor Specs: http://www.taylorgui...rs/acoustic/214

Link to my Martin DC-1E Specs: http://www.martingui.../589-dc-1e.html

[dadfad]

Differences in internal bracing patterns, thickness differences in the tone-woods, construction techniques. Even simple body shape and depth diferences. There are lots of variables.

 

While I'm truly a vintage Gibson-guy, I also have Martins, a Taylor and a Guild. Like you mentioned, the Taylor seems to be a "tighter" guitar. (I say that implying neither a positive nor a negative.) I would guess (purely a guess) that the Taylor uses more modern gluing techniques (like epoxy-type glues) whereas both the Martin and the Guild might use more traditional glues, like horsehide.

 

But there are so many variables, like you said, and all guitars have their own sound and nuances, which is why different guitarists choose different guitars even when cost is not a factor in their decision.

 

And welcome to GuitarZone.

[lowden]

Dadfad has hit the nail on the head, bracing, glues, tradition, wood thickness etc all are factors. He has not stuck his head out in the Guild v Taylor argument. I will... Guild. I have yet to find a Taylor I like, I've rarely played a Guild I didn't like. Taylors have a tone that is valid in the 'modern' era, but they'll never sound 'vintage'... a Guild will age gracefully. My humble opinion is buy a Lowden    p.s I am in no way connected to Lowden in any financial way, apart from they built a great guitar for me that I paid for.

Edited by lowden, 06 September 2013 - 03:17 PM.

[dadfad]

Dadfad has hit the nail on the head, bracing, glues, tradition, wood thickness etc all are factors. He has not stuck his head out in the Guild v Taylor argument. I will... Guild. I have yet to find a Taylor I like, I've rarely played a Guild I didn't like. Taylors have a tone that is valid in the 'modern' era, but they'll never sound 'vintage'... a Guild will age gracefully. My humble opinion is buy a Lowden    p.s I am in no way connected to Lowden in any financial way, apart from they built a great guitar for me that I paid for.

I pretty much agree with, Lowden. I won't say I don't like Taylors, but they are too... balanced, too "pretty-sounding" (does that make any sense?) for the styles I mostly play. Too "contemporary" for the old-time stuff I'm mostly into.

 

And Guild does have a very warm and rich sound. (My Guild is my go-to guitar for playing in dropped-D, which for some reason sounds better and has a deeper fuller resonance in that tuning than my normal go-to old Gibsons!)

 

The few Lowdens I've played were excellent guitars, and the only reason I never bought one was because they are not inexpensive and the guitars I already owned seemed to "cover" that sound. If you're looking for a high-quality acoustic guitar, buying a Lowden would probably be a worthy investment!

[lowden]

 

The few Lowdens I've played were excellent guitars, and the only reason I never bought one was because they are not inexpensive and the guitars I already owned seemed to "cover" that sound. If you're looking for a high-quality acoustic guitar, buying a Lowden would probably be a worthy investment!

 

One of the reasons I have no vintage Martins and Gibsons..... All the cash went on the Lowden , plus it's Irish made, so I felt obliged to support my own makers, when they are so good.

[tenn_jim]

Interesting discussion.  Even between guitars of the same vintage and manufacturer, there are subtle differences.  While the great luthiers of vintage Gibson, Martin, Lowden, Guild, et al. were very precise, there were differences in the wood used (thickness, moisture content, grain, etc.), shape and dimensions of the bracing, and all of the other variables both Dadfad and Lowden have enumerated.  In general, I don't like Taylors even though I do own one, because I dislike internal electronics on acoustic guitars.  Guess I'm just an old fool who believes great acoustic guitars don't need to be amplified.  And if you need the volume increased, put a microphone in front of it.

 

Now, I do believe there are different guitars for different genre and even songs within certain genre.  I always preferred the low end response of Gibson for country blues like those of Charley Patton, Robert Johnson and John's mentor, John Jackson.  For bluegrass and most flatpicking, I always pick up my Martin.  And if it's rockabilly or rock and roll, I usually play a Fender Telecaster. 

 

But this is indeed an interesting discussion.  I'd like to see if the other members here believe great guitars are like great wines - they open up with age?

 

http://guitarblues.proboards.com/

Edited by tenn_jim, 05 October 2013 - 05:48 AM.