New Taylor Construction...how lightly built?

[Truckjohn]

"A ton of bass" is not an indicator of being too lightly built...

A loose, unfocused hollow "tubby" sounding bass is worrisome.... As are muddy or hollow sounding trebles...

Bob Taylor and Andy Powers have both been building guitars for a long time now... And its interesting that over time - Taylor's factory production guitars are headed towards more lightly built than more heavily built.... At least for the time being.

I think a lot of that simply has to do with the strings and playing styles we see... You just don't see Taylor guitars strung with heavies or extra heavies to play unamplified live in a dance hall, club, fair, or outdoor amphitheater as was common prior to the mid 1960's before amplification...

A guitar braced for Medium strings does not need to be super heavily built - as the pre-1940's instruments testify..

[ChrisE]

Originally Posted by Shades of Blue

I don't think the shop owner was saying anything negative at all about Taylor, but he was discussing the "fragility" of the new 814s and that he's "hearing" how much more susceptible to humidity they are. I'd be interested to hear if any of our dealers here are noticing anything.

Like I said, no one in this conversation was bashing Taylor. The shop owner is a HUGE Taylor dealer and fan, and my buddy is a Martin player who likes my 814. The bulge is what brought this up. I am a huge Chevy fan, but if my new Silverado has a recall or warranty issue, I need it addressed right?

Thanks for the clarification. I'd value his opinion on the topic more than I would a disgruntled former Taylor dealer or one who couldn't get the line in his store.

[Shades of Blue]

Originally Posted by Truckjohn

"A ton of bass" is not an indicator of being too lightly built...

A loose, unfocused hollow "tubby" sounding bass is worrisome.... As are muddy or hollow sounding trebles...

Bob Taylor and Andy Powers have both been building guitars for a long time now... And its interesting that over time - Taylor's factory production guitars are headed towards more lightly built than more heavily built.... At least for the time being.

I think a lot of that simply has to do with the strings and playing styles we see... You just don't see Taylor guitars strung with heavies or extra heavies to play unamplified live in a dance hall, club, fair, or outdoor amphitheater as was common prior to the mid 1960's before amplification...

A guitar braced for Medium strings does not need to be super heavily built - as the pre-1940's instruments testify..

Thanks for that.

I'm starting to regret this thread because I'm not trying to spread Taylor rumors and such. I just wanted to get you guys thoughts on what you thought about Taylor's new lighter built options.

I'm relatively new to acoustics, as I've been an electric player for almost 20 years. My trusty Seagull served as my only acoustic for years. I've only recently gotten so bored with electrics that acoustic saved my marriage with the guitar.

As I learn more, some of my stupid questions may stop (or not). I'm just fascinated by how acoustics are built and how similar body shapes from different makers can sound so different.

[Shades of Blue]

Originally Posted by ChrisE

Thanks for the clarification. I'd value his opinion on the topic more than I would a disgruntled former Taylor dealer or one who couldn't get the line in his store.

Yeah the conversation actually started because my buddy is trying to talk me into selling my 814 and trying out a Gibson. Now, he likes the sound of my Taylor, and was saying that the shop owner was saying that while he is a huge advocate of Taylor, he's noticed even in his shop how the humidity affects his inventory.

I've noticed the bulge on my 814 for around a year now. I personally think it is normal based on what I've read, but when I see it in certain light, I can't help but wonder how that "look" when the light hits it could be desirable.

So, the key in this situation is that I refuse to take my Taylor out of the house. Last time I took it over to my buddies house, it was in the heat of summer and just the amount of time the guitar sat in my car made the guitar condensate when I took it out of the case in his 70 degree home. It was enough to trouble me. Because the guitar is lightly built I just feel safer with the guitar safely at home.

Then the question became, "Why have a guitar you have to finesse and baby? Get something like a Gibson that you can actually use."

[ChrisE]

Originally Posted by Shades of Blue

Thanks for that.

I'm starting to regret this thread because I'm not trying to spread Taylor rumors and such. I just wanted to get you guys thoughts on what you thought about Taylor's new lighter built options.

They all sound great. I'd love to have one of the new ones. If you're the original owner, the warranty should take care of any issues you may have. Like someone else said, all those great pre-war guitars were lightly built, and they sound great and have lasted for 75 years.

I've even heard Chris Martin say that the best acoustic guitars are the ones on the verge of destruction from string tension, or something to that effect.

[Truckjohn]

Its a good question. Its easy to make guitars very bassy by just building them lighter... Much more challenging to build them lighter and still have a big, full, balanced voice with clear, singing trebles....

[Greg Ballantyne]

This thread originally from 2010 - my first Taylor was made in 2014, the second in 2016. I've seen zero indications that they are "too lightly built"...... interesting when you read the opinions of experts - the attribute that makes pre-war Martins sought after today is seen by some to be light builds that Martin thought they had to enhance (beef up) structurally in the following years.......

I take those Taylors out and about, the 514 has a cedar top (softer, supposed to be more susceptible to string tension and changes) without any trouble. I play my guitars, I don't baby them.....that's why I bought them. And yes they sound great- another reason I bought them ......

Edit: Sorry, mistook a "joined date" for a "posted date" - not a 2010 thread at all.....

[SpruceTop]

Is a Taylor built any more lightly than a Custom Shop Gibson J-45 or even a 2012 and newer Standard Series Martin D-18? I have and have had examples of each and they are and were all light in weight which may or may not indicate a fragility over long-term usage.

FACT: Taylor guitar tops, because I believe from the relief-rout around the top's perimeter, are lightly sprung and thus are subject to forearm pressure causing an annoying wah-like/volume-pedal effect as varying forearm pressure contacts and is removed from the guitar's top. Every Taylor would benefit from a raised arm rest to remove forearm pressure from the guitar's top and improve consistency of tone.

EXPERIMENT: To verify what I've stated, play a first-position D-chord while strumming your Taylor and apply and remove forearm pressure on your guitar's top. What do you hear? Do this same experiment on a Martin and you won't hear anywhere near the same degree of wah-like/volume-pedal effect.

I'm equally fan of Taylor and Martin guitars and in no way should any of the above be construed as a bash against Taylor because it isn't.

[Shades of Blue]

Originally Posted by SpruceTop

Is a Taylor built any more lightly than a Custom Shop Gibson J-45 or even a 2012 and newer Standard Series Martin D-18? I have and have had examples of each and they are and were all light in weight which may or may not indicate a fragility over long-term usage.

FACT: Taylor guitar tops, because I believe from the relief-rout around the top's perimeter, are lightly sprung and thus are subject to forearm pressure causing an annoying wah-like/volume-pedal effect as varying forearm pressure contacts and is removed from the guitar's top. Every Taylor would benefit from a raised arm rest to remove forearm pressure from the guitar's top and improve consistency of tone.

EXPERIMENT: To verify what I've stated, play a first-position D-chord while strumming your Taylor and apply and remove forearm pressure on your guitar's top. What do you hear? Do this same experiment on a Martin and you won't hear anywhere near the same degree of wah-like/volume-pedal effect.

I'm equally fan of Taylor and Martin guitars and in no way should any of the above be construed as a bash against Taylor because it isn't.

I'll have to try that! That is interesting. I am a big guy and have a very heavy resting arm I'd wager. Will report back!

[RP]

Originally Posted by Shades of Blue

...I'm starting to regret this thread because I'm not trying to spread Taylor rumors and such. I just wanted to get you guys thoughts on what you thought about Taylor's new lighter built options...

...As I learn more, some of my stupid questions may stop (or not). I'm just fascinated by how acoustics are built and how similar body shapes from different makers can sound so different.

I apologize for raising the issue of "rumor and innuendo" but I suppose that as a Taylor fan-boy, I've long resented the oft-quoted thought that Taylors are too bright sounding. The way that the OP came across to me was more "guitar store/forum Taylor trash talk" from unidentified sources, which in retrospect was an erroneous interpretation on my part....

[Shades of Blue]

Originally Posted by RP

I apologize for raising the issue of "rumor and innuendo" but I suppose that as a Taylor fan-boy, I've long resented the oft-quoted thought that Taylors are too bright sounding. The way that the OP came across to me was more "guitar store/forum Taylor trash talk" from unidentified sources, which in retrospect was an erroneous interpretation on my part....

No apology necessary! I was totally understanding your concern and have tried to explain my position a little better. I'm a huge Taylor fan, I'm just trying to learn more about what my money has purchased me.

[beninma]

Regarding the belly bulge I'd get someone who really knows what is correct to look at it.

Taylor doesn't say anything model specific but the documentation they currently include with new guitars has photos showing a bit of bulge to be designed in.

[Shades of Blue]

Originally Posted by beninma

Regarding the belly bulge I'd get someone who really knows what is correct to look at it.

Taylor doesn't say anything model specific but the documentation they currently include with new guitars has photos showing a bit of bulge to be designed in.

That's why I haven't really pursued it much. I think it is normal, but it does annoy me a tinge that I can see it in the light when it is in the stand.

[marc515]

Does any one know specifics as to the thickness of the wood and finishes on the Taylors compared to Martin, Collings, etc.?

I thought all acoustic wood and finish thickness for tops and sides would be standard? around the top manufacturers?

M

[zombywoof]

I have owned guitars built in the early to mid-1930s which were very lightly built including one with an insanely thin, according to my repair guy, .040" thick bridge plate. All survived except one in which the light ladder bracing, spruce bridge plate and lack of any soundhole bracing conspired together to cave the top in.

If the Taylor is not under warranty you might look at installing a JDL Bridge Doctor. I know folks who see these as a survival kit for guitars, particularly 12 strings. They are cheap, easy to install and folks I know well enough to trust their opinions swear they work without hurting the sound.